wm 






LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 










^'^*'a'^ <>. "•'»^-'»* -.0' 



-^^ 






^' 



<& 







.0^ c ° " " * ''^ 



» I < 



' <f> " o N ■' 



» ( 1 



.^' 



'/■<■ 



<»-_ '*"'*i^ 



<-.V 













a V 







' 




.0^ 



o N a 






X^^^i^^^^^Xc^';: 













* • * ^N. ^v* 











7^' 



V .^^"^. ':W 



'iv 






J'.* >" "^, \\ 



' .^' 



0" o°_l'*. 'O 






^0^ 



^ 

°/?^. 



R'" "^b ^"^ 



Hq 



v<> 



o. 







.0' 






o^ ^:<4Zi^'^.* .Q> -v.'.'^^^^^i^/ ^K 




S;"-«'' '-'''; ' 



vV-^^ 



* > V 










'^^ ^^^ '.^ 

-^^ '- 



^o cS9^ 



» "*-■ ^--V^'*/''-. jr- 



O H O 



,-^ .<^^ 



>■ 

,=3] 



\/ 



V^* 



^o. ^^T»\o^ 



^♦^ .^^''^. * 



•^ 



.' f^^ 









o - 






'^^' .1'.- ^"^. 



V<^^ 



C^°< 



v^ 



■« • o 




.0- 




:. -t 















0' .!/,: 




♦ .-^^ ^. 'A 



' • o. 



"^-^^ 






J ^ ♦■ e D 




^^. 



..V 










_. /> fy^i-^^-^^e^ 





j11.'«^3ff \A\ 



OF 



EX-C^of. POMi, 



O ) SERIES OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUND^ 

FD TO HIM AND GOV. JONES, THROUGH 
THE PRESSES OF MEMPHIS; 






T©« ETHER WITH A 



I."]ETTEM 






ISCLOSING HIS VIEWS ON THE SUBJECT OF THE 
PUBLIC EXPENDI I'URES. THE PUBLIC DEBT, THE 
TARIFF, AND BANK OF THE UNITED STATES; 
WRITTEN IN PURSUANCE OF AN AGREEMENT BE- 
TWEEN HIMSELF AND GOV. JONES, ENTERED IN- 
TO DURING THE PRESENT CANVASS. 



PRINTED AT THE "APPEAL^' OFFICE. 

MKMPIIJ-S: 
I8i:i 







I' 



'QOV. POLKAS Al^SWERS. 



ColumUa, May 15, 1843. 
To H. Van Pelt, Esq. Editor of the Appeal : 
Sir: — At the earliest moment of leisure 
%vhich I have had, since I received, through 
ihe Memphis papers, the two series of inter- 
rogatories propounded to me by a portion of 
my fellovir citizens of Shelbj county,! have 
prepared my answers, and herewith trans- 
mit them to you, that they maybe published 
ihrough the same papers which conveyed 
to me the interrogatories, 

I am very respectfully. 

Your ob'dt serv't., 

JAMES K. POLK. 

To Messrs. G. W.] Smith, R. E. Titus, C. 
Stewart, and others: 

Gentlemen: My attention has been call- 
ed to the interrogatories — addressed by your- 
selves and others — to Gov. Jones and myself 
through the columns of the Memphis Ap- 
peal — and ( respectfully submit to you and 
ihrough you to the public my response: 

Your first interrogatory is as Ibllows: 

Ist. Are yoia for or against the first Bank 
Charter passed at the extra session of the late 
Congress commonly called Clai/s Bill — which 
was vetoed by Mr. Tyler? 

I answer that I am "acainst the first Bank 
Charter passed at the Extra Session of the 
late Congress, commonly called Clay^s Bill, 
which was vetoed by Mr. Tyler." In a 
speech delivered at Pulaski on the SQth of 
September last, and which was afterwards 
published in some of the newspapers, I sta- 
ted the character of the Bank which was 
proposed to be estabished by that Bill. I beg 
leave to refer you to the following extract 
from that speech, to wit: 

•'The time vras, and but a fewr years ago, 
■when the avowed bank party in this state was 
exceedingly small. All the prominent and lea- 
ding men of the party who were now its advo- 
cates, including members of Congress, members 
of the Legislature, and others, were opposed to 
a National Bank. They supported with great 
unamity General Jackson's Veto of the Bank 
bill in 1832. They surported Judge White and 
this'eame Mr. Tyler for the Bresidency and Vice 
Presidency in 183B, with their known and pub- 
licly avowed opinions against an incorporated 
National Bank of any kind. They had since 
that time changed their opinions. That, cer- 



tainly they had a right to do; 'o% _ ; .^ ,vi 

an ill grace from them tocensuve iuose \/ho hir 
not changed with them — one of the ^reate 
difficulties which the opponents of a birtk hi 
had to encounter in this St;;le, had lieen . 
meeting the vague generalities i'j vv^ich tl 
Bank advocates had dealt. They all, \s\ih. pe 
haps rare exceptions, professse^' to coud.-.mn ai 
oppose the late bank of the United Ststes,]- -. 
any other bank organized onsniiJar principjji 
They would say, we are opposod to \hi;A 
Bank, but we are in favor of a new Bank, ^ 
suitable restrictions and modifications. .Wm 
these modifications and restri';t)ons were tWi 
would not specify. They tal.vfirl of ihemli 
general and vague terms, but their plans of 
Bank they did not and would- not give. Sonj 
to be sure, had in their minds rn imcert.'iin ui 
undefined notion of^the plan of s. bunk w(i 
which they would be pleased, such as that thgi' 
should be no private s"tockholilef.s. iiiul thf-t. 
should be owned by the Gen.^r&l Governmeii 
and the States. Many hones; men had tiet 
made to think that a proper sort of bark '.nij' 
be framed that might be useful. He said he r 
garded it as fortanate in the future diaeuss\o^ 
of the subject that the party advocating a Baiii" , 
in this state at least, had at length ben drivt 
from their vague generalities. Thoy baj» - 
brougiit in and passed a Bank c^?.rter at the i^; - 
tra Session of Congress. Mr. Clay v.. s its ar 
thor— President Tyler vetoed it, and tJecausejl; 
had done so, they had denounced him as a tra; 
tor, and had burnt and hung- hiai in effigy. | * 
President Tyier bad signed that bill they sai 
the whole scheme of Federal ii.f^asures woui 
have been complete. That bill, thra we onii 
presume, contained their plan of a Bark, andil 
get it they were nov/ prepared to eiect Hen^ 
Clay President of the United States." 

"Now, what was that bill, and whs! wat tb 
kind of bank which they promis".! hy it to v\ 
country if they continued another Preridenil 
term in power? A siigni inspection oi its pi- 
visions would show that it was an old fashion 
incorporated Stock Bank, to be owned in psi 
and in fact controlled by private stockliolde; 
retaining all the bad features of the late bao 
ar.d embracing others that made it even mo 
objectionable than that Bank, bad as it was. 
Its capital stock was to be thirty millions , 
Dollars, with power reserved to increase it ' 
50 millions after the year 1850. One third c 
the capital stock, or Ten Millions of Dollar, 
was to be subscribed for by the United State! 
and two thirds or Twenty millions of dollar; 
was to be subscribed for by individuals, compa 
nies, corporations, or States. The Ten million 
of dollars to be subscribed by the United States 
was to be raised by borrowing the money, i 
public debt of Ten Millions of dollars was b 
the charter authorised to be created, and fo 
that purpose a public stock of the United Stale ' 
was to be issued, bearing interest at the rat'J c 
five per centum per annum, which was not t 
be paid until after the expiration of Cfteei 



e*as. This loan must most probakly, he might 
afely say, certainly have been made from for- 
iffners. Thu3 presenting a nation of seventeen 
iiillions of freemen in the humiHaliog, if not 
legrading^ altitude of borrowing money o« in- 
erest from foreigners to make a bank upon.— 
fhe interest on the loan which was to be paid 
lalf yearly, was five hundred thousand dollars 
lyear, and would have amoncted for the fifteen 
rears (sooner than the er^piration of which it 
lould not be redeemed) to seven millions five 
jundred thousand doMers. The Bank was to 
le located at Washington City, and was to be 
foverned by nine directors, three of whom were 
lO be appointed by the United States, and six 
)r the private gtoc'kholders. All know that six 
rould control three — so that the bank itself 
vould in fact have been under the absolute 
lontrol of the private stockholders. Indeed 
.his seemed, to have been designed by the char- 
er itself — for it was provided that "not less 
,han five directors shall constitute a board for 
.he transaction of business, of whom the Pres- 
dent shall always be one, and at least three of 
jhe five shall be of the directors elected by the 
itockholders." This provision made it absolute- 
y impossible even in a thin board, for the three 
3overnmeat directors in any poesible case, to 
2onstitute a majority. The principal board 
ivere empowered to appoint the directors or 
managers of the branchss. The public monies 
were directed to be deposited with the bank, 
ind as a considerable amount of it would neces- 
larily be always on hand, it would be used and 
traded upon as banking capital. The taxes 
paid by the people for the support of Govern- 
ment would constitTjte a part of the banking 
sapilal, to be loaned out, and upon which the 
private stockholders would make proffit. This 
was the outlias of Mr. Clay's Bank Bill which 
president Tyler vetoed- He had searched in 
ra.\n through its provisions for those restrictions 
i;;d limitations which ^^-ere so often and so 
vaguely spoken of, and which were to prevent it 
from running into all the corruptions and abuses 
of the Ittta Bank of the United States. The 
United States was made by this charter to go in- 
to partnership with the private stockholders, to 
place all the revenues in the concern, and was 
yet placed in a minority in the directory, and 
was therefore deprived of all power or control 
ovjr therai. Who v;ould probably have become 
the private stockholders in such a bank? In 
the West and South, where there Vfas but little 
surplus capitrtl, and where money bore highrates 
of interest, but little if any would have been 
taken. Scarcely a share of the Stock in the 
late Bank of the United States was at any time 
owned in Tennessee. There could be no doubt 
that much- the larger portion of it would have 
either been taken at first or been ultimately 
owned by the Federalists of the northern and eas- 
tern sections of the Union, who v;cre the lar- 
gest capitalists of the country. This v/as the 
case with the old Bank. And though stock 
eould not be taken directly by foreigners, there 
was no doubt but that much of it would have 
been ultimately held by them under cover of 
•ecrettrasts in the name of others. He could 
have no doubt that if it had been eatablisljed it 
T«>ould have soon become aa immense political 



engine of deadly hostility to the purity of elec^- 
tioos, and to the liberties of the people, and^ 
would have been wielded by a corrupt faction, 
as was the late Bank of the United States, and 
for the worst of purposes The thanks of the 
country, he had no hesitation in saying, wera 
due to Mr. Tyler for having arrested it as he did 
by his Veto. 

"Was this the kind of Bank which the body 
of the party in this State wanted. He thought 
he could answer with certainty that it was not. 
And yet this was Mr. Clay's Bank, and to get 
it, they were now told by leading- public mea 
and newspapers, they, mtistvole for him to be 
President of the United States. He did not deem 
it necessary, and if he did, time would not allow 
him to enter upon the general discussion of tho 
Bank question and the currency on that occa- 
sion. He would only add that neither a Na- 
tional Dank or any other Bank could prevent 
commercial revulsions or furnish a remedy a- 
gainst hard times. When we had a National 
Bank we had witnessed such times, and when 
we had none we had witnessed them." 

Your second interrogatory is as follows, to. 
wit:: 

2d. Are you in favor of restoring the princi- 
ples of the Compromise Tariff Bill of 1833T 

I answer that I ara< 

Your third interrogatory is as follows; to. 

wit; 

3d. Do yov: approbate the course of the Whig 
nominees for the Senate of the United States at 
the lasUegjilar Session of the General Assem- 
bly, to wit: E. H. Foster and S. Jarnagin, iii re- 
fusing to declare their opinion upon the subject 
of the Bankrupt Law, and other subjects, and 
the right of instruction when called upon by oae. 
branch of the elective power? 

I answer that I cannot approve the "course- 
of the Whig nominees for the Senate of the 
United States, at the last regular session of 
the General Assembly" or of any other 
aspirant or candidate for public station, in 
refusing to declare their opinions freely and 
without reserve, upon all public subjects,, 
upon which they may be interrogated by a 
portion of the constituent body. The right: 
of instruction by the constituent body to tha 
Representative or public agent,, and ths du-^ 
ty of the latter to obsy in good faith or re- 
sign, is one of the cardinal principles, held 
by the political party of which I am a mem- 
ber. Destroy this principle, or permit the 
candidate for ofSce by his silence to evade 
it, and bo thereby at liberty to act as he 
pleases, after he is elected, is to place the 
servant above his master. No man in my 
;opinion who denies the right of instruction^ 
or by his silence, refuses to admit it, ought 
to be intrusted with the care of the public, 
interests. 



Your fourth interrogatory is in the follow- ' 
jn^ words, to wit : 

4tb. Do you believe that, under the constitu- 
tion of the "United States, Senators in Congress 
may be elected by the separate actions of the 
General Assembly? 

I answer 1 do. Some of the States e'ect 
in that mode; and the constitiuionality of 
such elections has never been denied or 
questioned. 

Your fifth interrogatory is ns follows, to 

vvit: 

5th. Did the proposition made by the Demo- 
crats in the last Legislature to elect one mem- 
ber of the Senate of the United States of the 
Whig party, and the ether of the Democratic 
pariy meet your approbation, or did you appro- 
bate the refusal of the Whig members to ac- 
cept sucti proposition? 

I answer, that under the circumstances as 
they existed, the proposition of compromise, 
in the election of United States Senators 
made by the Democratic party in the last 
Legislature, did meet my approbation . By 
the popular vote, it was apparent, that the 
political parlies in the State, were very 
nearly equally divided. Bv the elections of 
members of the General Assembly, it ap- 
peared that one party had a majority of three 
in the popular branch, and the other of one 
in the Senate. There being three times as 
many Sepresentatives as there are Sena- 
tors, it follows, that one Senator renresented 
precisely as many people as three llepresen- 
tatives; and that the majorities in the respec- 
tive Houses, were precisely equal. I was 
desirous that the State should be represented 
in the Senate of the United Slates, and be- 
lieved at the time the proposition of compro- 
mise was made, that it was fair and proper; 
and that if it had been acceded to it would 
probably have been satisfactory to the mod- 
erate men of both parties. When the prop- 
osition of compromise was rejected, my opin- 
ion was and is, that the majority of the Sen- 
ate acted properly, in insisting upon a mode 
of election conceded lobe constitutional, by 
which the rights of their constituents could 
he preserved, and the election of Senators 
be prevented vtho concealed their opinions 
on public subjects, and refused to avow 
them when respectfully asked by a portion 
of the constituent body to do so. 

YourGlh. and 7th. Interrogatories are 
as follows, to wit: 

6th. Are you in favor of withdrawing Die 
proceeds of the public lands from the support 
of the Icderal tJovcriiment, and supplying the 
deficit occasioned thoicby in the iNalional Trcas- 
virv bv an iiicrca'icd TanlT—arc you in favor of 



appropriating the proeeeds aforesaid to mec 
the current exjienses of the Government, an( 
reducing to that amonnt the Tarili'? 

7lh. If you are in favor of distributing ihi 
proceeds of the public lands amon? the Slates 
are you of opinion that such distibulion sliouh 
be confined to the lands within the limits of th 
cession of V'irginia and other States to the Un- 
ted S?atcs--or are you in favor of distributir 
h1?o the ])roceed8 of the lands piircbaoed by t 
United States from France, including Louisia 
and the lands purchased by the United Stat 
from Spain, including the Floridas? 

1 answer that I am opposed to the poli 
of "withdrawing the proceeds of the pub 
lands from the support of the Federal Gos 
ernmenl" and distributing them to the Siatiis 
but would retain the moneys, derived fronr 
the sales of the lands in the Treasury, ant 
apply them to the payment of the necessary 
expenses of the General Governnieni. 
would retain and thus apply the moneys 
derived from the sale of the lands, whethei 
embraced in the cession from the States, oi 
the lands purchased by the United States 
from France »nd Spain. It has been some' 
titnes assumed (erroneously as 1 think) tha: 
ihe lands, embraced in the cession frot)! 
the States, were cotiveyed in trust, and up 
on that ground it is said the moneys deiiv 
ed from them, may be distributed. I do no| 
regard the acts of cession as containing sue', 
a trust; but if they did, the cost of exiingi ^'j 
ing Indian title, of Indian wars, rend »iii 
necessary to get possession of them; of <^- 
veys, of salaries of officers, and other ^'" 
penses ofbringing them into market, it 7' 
be found on examination, have cost i 
than the United States have ever rect i*'.' 
from the sale of lands, — bringing the 1 U, 
actually indebted to the Tieasurv. ji- i 
lands purchased fiom France and ^pa wl 
is not pretended constitute a trust fund /' 
it cannont be maintained that upon ij 
(Tfound the proceeds of their sale cii br 
distributed. For my views on this si; '■ 
I refer you to my published address U ^ j 
people of Tennessee/' bearing date o i^^ 
'25lh March, 1841. In that address I f ^ar 
"The distribution of th« proceeds of thi (tc 
of the public lands among the states, ar iarJ 
consequent increase of the Tariff to sup -npa! 
amount of revenue equal to (hat which n Ijon 
abstracted from (he common treasury, w j^tef 
doubtedly be among the measures of tli , ^ 
administration. This is not a new quest -g b 
It has been repeatedly before Congress. ^ fd 
biouglit up by Mr. Clay during the admi ic! 
tion of G,3n. Jackson, and was delibt c 
considered nnd settled at that (ime. ' ■■•' 

sef-sionof i&32, 3, a Bill for that purpose pn-v-ei 
both HoNsos of Concress, and was sent to tl 
Prcfidcnt for hi" approbation and signature, t 



(he liiEl day of the seBKlon. The President did 
not approve it. but not having time, before the 
adjoururncnt to prepare liis reasons, witliheJd 
it until the opening of the next session io De- 
cember, foliwwing, wiicn he communicated a 
message containin;; ihem, to the Senate of the 
Uunited States. The President phiced his ob- 
jections to tho measure upon Constitutional 
grounds, as well as upon the grounds of its in- 
experiieucy. All the members of both Houses 
of Congress from this State, who were present 
at the vote, except one* of (he Representatives, 
voted against it. Judge White a.nd Judge Grun- 
dy voted against it in the Senate; (see Senate 
Journal, 2d Session 22d Congress, p 138.) John 
Blair, William Hall, Jacob G. Isaacks, Janus 
Slartdifer and myself voted against it in the 
House; (see Journal of the House of Represen- 
tatives, 2d Session 22d Congress, p 460.) Three 
of our Kepresentalives were not present at the 
vote, but It was well knovi'n at the time that 
Ihe^' concurred in opinion with a majority of 
theircoiloagues, and would have voted against 
it if they had been present. The veto of the Pres- 
ident was every where approved by the Republi- 
can party, and by none was it more heartily or 
generally approved than by the people of Ten- 
nessee. Tlu measure had been recently revived, 
was the subiect of protracted discussin in the 
late Congress, and from the developments be- 
fore us, will be passed as an administratin 
ineafure in the next." 

"The proposed distribution is in (ruth, but a 
branch of Mr. Clay's famed 'American System' 
a system embracing as its primary and lead- 
ing objects, a high protective tariff: a profuse 
and wasteful expenditure of public money for 
objects of Internal Improvement, and high 
prices of public lands; a system which operated 
so unjustly and oppressively upon the Southern 
and planting slates, as to compel its advocates 
reluctantly to yield to the 'Compromise Act' of 
1833. Mr. Clay is the author of of the measure, 
as he was of the 'American System.' The lim- 
its of this address will not allow me to enter up- 
on an extended argument of the question. A 
few of the principal points of objection are all 
that can be here stated. If the receipts from 
the sales of the public land?, amounting to sev- 
eral millions annually, shall be abstracted from 
the Treasury and given to the States, it follows 
, that an equal amount must be raised by an in- 
, crease of the tariff, or by a lax in some other 
' form, to supply the deficiency ; and if raised by 
'" an increase of the tariff, it requirers no argu ■ 
' menl to prove that the ta.v will be paid in un- 
; equal proportions by the people of the different 

• sections of the Union — the Southern and plant- 
liuT States bearing niuch tlie greater part of the 
.burden. To avoid this objection, and to con- 
Jceal from tho tax paying portion of the Union, 

• the fact, that the ultimate effect, if not the main 
.object of the measure, will be to afford a plans- 
■ible pretext for an increased protective tariff, 

_it is said that the increased tax may be levied 
.on Wines, Silks, and other luxuries. Still it 

ii^will be a tax upon labor, and will naturally 
.afl'ect the value ofour products given in exchange 
orthem. Must it not strike the advocatcG of 



t 



"!' D. AnioM. 



distribution too, that the power of tins argu- 
ment is lost, wlien they refisct, that if luxurios 
are not suSiciently taxed, tlial the better plan 
would be to leave the monies arising I'roui lands 
in the Treasury, to defray the public expenses, 
as far as they will go, and to lighten the duties 
on necessaries and increase them on luxuries? 

"In anollier view, the proposed distribution 
isa tariff measure. Ifit prevail, Massacusetts, 
Vermont and other States, containing within 
their borders no portion of the public lands, 
will be immediately vested with a local pecuni- 
ary interest in them. The public lands will, 
in effect be mortgaged to (he several Slates, in 
proportion to the Federal reprcseillation in Cor:- 
gress, and they will have an interest in having 
them sold at the highest possible rates. They 
will have an intereat in opposing the gradua- 
tion or reduction of price, and in oppOL^ing thu 
grant of pre-emptions at lov/ rates to that hardy 
and enterprising race of pioneer occupants who 
have gone with their families to the West, built 
their "log cabins,' opened their little far.nis i^ set- 
tled upon them, because they Vv'ould apprehend 
that the amount of their respective dividends in 
the distribution v/ould be thereby diminished. 
The manufacturing states would have a })cculiy.r 
interest in resisting the reduction of price or 
the grant of pre emption to settlers at a low rate, 
because to keep up the price of the lands, and 
withhold grants of i)ro-emption would hd'io 
check emigration, retain tho laboring popula- 
tion at home, and thus reduce the wages of la- 
bor, and increase the profits of the capatalists 
engaged in manufactures. Tho manufacturing 
interest would be advanced by another reasou. 
They would receive (heir federal proportion of 
the distibution, and would not contribute in 
the same ratio in the payment of the lax to eup- 
ply the deficiency. They would in audition to 
this receive the bounties to their nianul'alurcs, 
which an increased tariff' would afford, whilst 
these bounties would be paid by tiie South; in 
every view of the measure, it is an auxilarry to 
the protective policy. It is presented, it is true, 
in the seductive, but at the game time deceptive 
and disguised form, of s;iving money to the 
States out of the Fcdc-al Treasury, when it is 
in truth laying new burdens ..^on the people. — 
The manufacturing States so understand it. and 
hence the Legislatures of Vermont, Rhode 
Island, Coimecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, 
Delaware and some oliicr Stales, have duruig 
the past and present year, passed Legislalivo 
Resolves instructing their Senators and reques- 
ting their Repesentatives in Congress to advo- 
cate the measar". The State of Connecticut 
publicly declares tliai such i.^ her object by 
passing Rosolve.f, at liu; same time instructing 
her Senators and Representatives in CongresJ 
to "resist by all constitutional means every at- 
tempt to destroy or impair the protective poli- 
cy," and to use their exertions to procure the 
passage of sucli laws as will effectually protect 
the labor of tins country, the manufacturing 
labor of course is mcnt. The Legislature of 
Pennsylvania, in the month of January last, 
avowed in direct terms, that an increase of Itic 
tariff was their object. They passed a Resolve 
iostructiEg their .Senators siic4 Rcprcsentalivo:^ 
to ad', nrale and voU; f..r th? ;l:Jl.*-il>ut;o;i, and 



passed a seconJ RcsoItc in the following word* 
VIZ: 

"Resolved, That our Senators he further in- 
structed und our Hep? esentatices rKquesiedto tote 
for suck I ertiod'ficatiun or adju^tinenl of the tariff, 
as may increase t/ic lerenue. dericed from imports 
equg-t to the. wants of the Nattunal Government, 
so that at no time hireojtcr. under any pretext 
whattver, shall any money arising from the sales 
of the Puhhc lunds be used by the General Gov- 
ernment ■' 

"Ail the Resolves refered to were passed by 
Legislatui-os, a inajority of whose uiemhcrs 
were the polilical friends and supporters of the 
present INutional Administration. They have 
all been officially comtnunicated to the Execu- 
tive of this State, (as 1 presume thej have been 
(o the Executive of all ihe Ststes,) with a re- 
<iuest that the same ma> belaid before the next 
Genral Assembly of Tennessee. The Stales 
of Alabama a fid Mississippi have passed Resolves 
responsive to the Resolves of Coonecticut, in 
which they maintain the old ground of the 
Soulh against the "protective policy." That 
this Stale will maintain similar ground with 
her southern sister Ststes, when the Resolves of 
Connecticut como to be considered by her Le- 
gislature, 1 cannot doubt; in the face of this evi- 
dence before us, hone can be so blind as not to 
see that the measure lo distribute the pro- 
ceeds of the sales of the public lands among the 
States, is but the pioneer step to the revival of '; 
a "protective tariff." 

"But there are other reasons which are con- 
clusive agaist it. If the money derived from 
the public lands be taken from the Treasury, 
und abstracted from the use of the Government 
to be distributed among the States, the States 
would receive it in sums diminished not only 
by the cost of distribution, but would be sub- 
jected to the additional cost necessarily inci- 
<lent to the collection of an equal sum by a ta.x 
in another form. In a more fiscal point of 
view, therefore, tlis policy of the measure can- 
not be justified. But there is still a higher and 
u Weightier objection. The public lands are 
the common property of all the States, and 
when the money derived from them is collected 
and placed in the Treasury, it goes into the 
»;otunio'n fund of Ihe Nation, and is subject, as 
all other public monies collected from other 
«ourc«s are, to be applied to defray the nccesa- 
ry expenses of (jovernment — Wlien in the 
'I'rcasury. it cannot be dislmguised from money 
collected by duties on imports, and the Gov- 
ernment posses.ses the fame power to distribute 
or give away money derived froir. the one source, 
as the other. What would be thought of a pro- 
j)Ostion to distribute or g:ive to the States, as a 
mere donation, the money collected by duties 
on imports, thereby cre-Uiug (Iib necessity for a 
new Ih.v, or increased tariff, to supply the defi- 
ciency, and yut there is tlie same coiistilutional 
power to do this, that there is to distribute Ihe 
money derived from the lands. To distribute 
or give away toihe States money in the Treas- 
ury derived from other sources , would be in ef- 
lact lo make the Fedeial Government Ihe tax 
^•alhncr for the Slates, a power jiot conferred 
\ip(in that Government by the Constitution; and 
111 llii.- vi»w tlie lanisnrF prrccnts svicli in:-!upcr- 



able objections to my mind that f cannot yieJd 
to it my support. 

"Should the policy of distribution prevaW, 
another consequence which will follow will bo 
the revival of'that splendid and wasteful and 
corrupting System of Internal Improvements 
by Federal authority, which was checked and 
arrested by the Veto on the Maysville Road 
Bill. Indeed, a System of Federal internal im- 
provementa is the hand-maid of a protective 
tariff, and furnishes the absorbent or spunge 
which is to suck up the revenues neees?arily 
collected by a high protective laiiff and wheth- 
er prosecuted in the form of direct appropria- 
tions from the Treasury, or though the agency 
of the States, iho effect is the same." 

Your 8lh. Iriierrogatory is as follows, to- 
wit: 

8th. Are you in favor of restoring to Gen. 
Jackson Ihe line imposed on him by Judge Hall 
at New Orleans, imraedialGly after the siege of 
that city and if so, are you in favor of doing' so 
without conditiun or restiction — op would you 
impose as a condition of such restoration a pro- 
vision in the act approving- the conduct Judge 
Hall implying a eonsureof Gen. Jackson? 

I answer that I am in "favour of restor- 
ing to Gen. Jackson the fine imposed on him 
liy JurJije Hall immediately after the siege of 
New Orleans, and I am in favor of reslorinsj 
it, without conditjon or restriction. I would 
not in the act of restoration, approve the 
conduct of Judge Hail, and thereby imply a 
censure of General Jackson. 1 believe that 
(he declaration of martial law by General 
Jackson was probably the only means of 
saving New Orleans. I believe that the act 
which was charfjed against Gerveral Jack- 
son to be a contempt of judicial authority, 
was one which was necessary and proper for 
the continual saiety of New Orleans. 1 be- 
lieve that the conduct of Judge Hal I was un~ 
patriotic and vindictive, and the fine which 
General Jackson was required to pay under 
his sentence, ought to be restored to him willv 
inifrest from the date of its payment. 

Your t)th interrogatory is as follows, lo 
wit: 

9th. Are you in favor of the bill reported by 
a Whig committee of the Senate of the United 
States in Ihe last Congress, proposing to pay llio 
heirs of Gen. Hull his salary as Governor of 
Michigan, from the time he surrendered himself 
and the American army to the British comman- 
der during the last war, until he was exchanged 
for, tried liy a Court Martial of American offi- 
cers, sentenced by them to be shot, and par- 
doned by President Madison? 

I answer that I am opposed to "the Bill 
reported bv a Whig committee of ihe Sen- 
ate of the United States in the last Conorres'', 
for ihe benefit of the Heirs of General Hull, 
not being enabled to perceive any principle 
af ^>atijotisin or of justice, >\hich would eii- 



'<iii[e t1iem to the donation which ii proposed 
toniaketo ihem. In striking conlrnsl wiih 
the proposition made for the benefit of the 
heirs ol Hull, is tlie refusal of (he same 
committee of the Senate, to restore to Gen. 
Jackson, ihe 'fine imposed on him at New 
Orleans, withnut accompanyinii it with a 
provision, acquilliiig Judge Hall of all im- 
})roper conduct, thereby implying a censure 
on the conduct ef General Jackson, 'i'he 
tliflTerence between the conduct of General 
Hull and General Jackson is, that the lorjn"> 
cr commenced the war with disgrace to 
himself and the latter closed it with honor 
to himself and his country. The Whig 
<*ommittee of the Senate, proposed to reward 
the heirs of the former and refused to do 
justice to Ihe latter by restoring to him his 
own money, improperly taken from him, by 
a vindictive judge without accompanying, it 
with a condition, implying a censure, and 
1 hereby inflicting a wound upon his reputa- 
tion. 

Your lOih interrogatory is as folIowF, to 
wit; 

Iflth. Are you of opinion that it was constitu- 
tional or expedient to pass the act which was. 
passed at the rxtra session of Congress donating 
to Mrs. Harrison, widow of tlie late President 
Harrison, a'^^t twenty-three thousand dollars 
of the public^oney? 

1 answer that in my opinion it was not 
constitutional or expedient, to niake the do- 
nation which was made by Congress lo Mrs. 
Harrison, widow of the late President Har- 
rison. Congress possesses no power to make 
mere donations, such as I regard this to be. 
The precedent if followed will lead to the 
worst of consequences. Upon the same 
principle, upon which the grant was made 
to Afrs. Harrison, similar grants may be 
made to the widows of our ministers abroad, 
of the members of the cabinet, of members 
pf Congress, of the Judges of our courts, 
and other civil officers, who may happen to 
die whilst in the public service. The pre- 
cedent is a dangerous one, and if followed 
may lead to the establishment of an immense 
civil pension list, such as exists in the En- 
glish monarchy. In the short debate which 
occurred in the Senate of the United Stales, 
whilst the Bill granting this donation to 
3Irs Harrison was pending before that bo- 
dy, a dislingui.'-hed Senator declared that, 
■"The aid of precedent is invoked in this 
«ase,bntin vain. It has no precedent, but 

will form a dreadful one.'' 

* * * * 

And again he said '*At the head of these 



cases eo cited, stand.* the act for the ben^Fif 
of Mrs. Brown, widnw of General Brown, 
which was passed by Coniiress. in the y^-ar 
1828, and gave to her the remainder of her 
husband's pay [or the year in which he died, 
that is to say about nine months pay." 

"I was contemporary wilii tliis case — know 
all about it — ncted a part in it — have its liisto, 
ry in my mind, as well as in the debates of the 
day — and can show that it has no annlogy tO' 
the present case, j\nd was respectably opi)ysed. 
at the time as being without warrant from the 
Constitnlion — of evil example — and would be 
quoted in after times fir even worse acts. 1 
voted against it, and so did many others, andt 
among ihem those who were usually found! 
standine; as a body guard n round the Constitu-- 
tion. The votes a^rainst the bill was, Mesfrs^ 
Bell, Benton, Branch, CnANDLEa, Cohb, Dick- 
inson, Ellis, Foot. King of Ahibama. Macon,. 
NoBLK, Parris, Tazwell, Tyler, White and 
Williams. We were sixteen who stood together 
on that occasion — ^ number not large,— but 
graced with some names wiiich have weight 
with the country. Tliis case of Mrs. Brown's- 
i8 quoted as a precedent for Mrs. Harrison's bill,, 
but most unjustly. It is a military, and not a, 
civil case . Her hnsband died in the army, and 
the reporter of the bill (General Harrison) pro- 
duced the etatemen's of the Surgeon General 
of the Army, (Dr. Lovell) and of another phy- 
sician, (Dr. Henderson) to prove (hat General 
Brown died in consequence of a clibeasc contrac- 
ted in the public service, and was to be clas.^ed 
with those who were killed in the line of (heir 
duty. "/< will he srcn (said General Harrison) 
that the Surgeon Gene ml asserts that if General 
Brown had lived, and retired from the army, he 
wnild have given him a certificate for a full pen- 
sion under the existing laics of the country,''' — 
This was the arguint^nt of General Harrison,. 
and in conformity to it, proposed a preamble to 
the bill in these word>: — ^IVhcreas the late Ma- 
jor General Urown died in consequence, of indispor 
sit ion, contracted in the service of the United 
States, S;c., and another member of the Senate, 
now a Senator (Mr. B«rr)e») offered an amend-, 
meat to the body of the bill, declaring the rea- 
sons for this grant in these word?: 'Whose death 
is supposed to have been caused hy disease contrac • 
ted while in the service of the I'nited States on ih& 
Niagara frontier.' This preamble and this a- 
mendment were not adopted, for fear they would; 
make precedents; and now the act become a far 
more dangerous prccedeut wifhout these clauses 
than it would have been with Shem. 

"Such was the case of i\frs Brown — a milita- 
ry case — coming withm the equity, as the 
friends of the measure agreed, of the then exis- 
tine pension laws. Aad this case is to be made 
a precedent for Mrs. Harrison, whose case is a 
civil one, and incapable of being assimilated in 
a solitary particular with the one to which it 
refers for justification. Such is precedent — . 
such the foUy— the danger of construeing our 
Constitution by precedent? The tlrst in'tance 
is got upon one reason, the next upon another, 
and so on, until all rcas-^ns arc lost fight of; 
the Constitution itself ?s Lost sight of— and the 



8 



Legislature reis;ns auprPmc without a limit upon 
tl8 pewer, or a guide to its actsi" 

Tiie other precedents usually quoted, 
bear as little analogy to the case of Mrs. 
Harrison, as does that of Mrs. Brown. — 
The grant to La Fayette for example was 
based upon the ground of military services 
rendered in the War of the Revolution, for 
^vh!ch he had never been adequately com- 
pensated. The cuHeofilfrs. Decatur, m\d, 
the officers and crew of the vessel comman« 
tied by her late husband, the gallent co 
mander Decatvr, was not an application 
lor a donation, such as was granted to Mrs. 
Harrison, but was a claim presented for 
prize- money, under the equity of the act of 
Congress; which grants prize money to the 
eapiois of vessels of war from a foreign ene- 
my . Decatur and his officers and crew per- 
formed one of the most gallant deeds, of any 
age, by recapturing the Frigate Philadelphia 
under the wr.lls and guns of Tripoli. By 
the order of the commander of the squadron 
before he set out on the expedition, he set 
fire to the vessel and burned her after she 
was recaptured, when, but for such orders, 
he could have brought her safely out. His 
widovyf after his death, and the brave officers 
and seaman, who were with him, claimed 
that ihey were equitably entitled to prize 
money. This is the cause of Mrs, Decatur, 
sometimes relered to, and there are no points 
of analogy between it and the cause oi' Mrs. 
Harrison, The one is a claim; the other is 
ii mere naked donation. I cannot refer to 
the other precedents quoted, without swell- 
inii this answer to unreasonable lenstli. I 
will only add that it is the principle involved 
in the grant to Mrs. Harrison, to which 
I object. 

Your 11th. Interrogatory is as follows, to 

wit, 

1 1th. Arc you in favor of the tarifF Act now 
in force passed by tlie last Con<jress? 

I answer that I am not in "favour of the 
tariff act now in force, passed by the last 
Congress." It is in my opinion, in many 
of its provisions, highly •protective, and not 
designed as a revenue measure. For my 
views as expressed at some length up on the 
subject, I refer you to a speech delivered by 
me at Pula?lu on the 29th of September 
1842; and also to one delivered by me at 
Jackson on the 3id of April 1813,- both of 
which have been published. 

Having now, gentlemen, answered your 
several interrogatories as I trust, satisfacto- 
rily ; and having also anawered certain other 



interogalories, prnpoiinded by others of niv 
fellow citizens of Shelby county — I shall 
forward both answers, by the next mail to 
Memphis, to the end that they majr be pub- 
lishedi I am. Gentlemen, 

With high Respect. 
Kour obedient serv't, 
JAMES K. POLK. 




Columbia, May 15, 1843. 
To Messrs Wyatt Christian, J. T. Leath, 
and others : 

Gentlemen : — I have received through 
the Memphis Enquirer the communication 
of yourselves and other citizens of Shelby 
County, addressed to Gov. Jones and my- 
self, propounding to each, certain interroga- 
tories upon public subjects, to which I now 
proceed to reply. 

Your first interrogatory is as follows, viz 

" Ist. Are you in favor of a mixed currency 
of paper money and the precious metals ? " 

I answer that I am in favor of such cur- 
rency — and for my views as expressed on 
the subject, I refer you to my Message to 
the General Assembly of this State, of the 
22d of October, 1831). In that^iessageyou 
will find that after earnestly urging the pro- 
priety of an early resumption of specie pay- 
ments by our Banks, I say : 

" Banks, and the use of Dank paper and cred- 
its, have become from loD^ habit interwoven 
and intimately connected with all our e.\ten9ive 
commercial operations, and if it be concedsd 
that their employment to a reasonable extent, 
in conducting our trade, has in the existing state 
of our currency, become conducive to our pros- 
perity , it must also be allowed that no Banks 
or Bank issues should be tolerated which do 
not rest on a solid and substantial specie basis, 

and be required to meet the demands of trade. 

****** 

The circulation which they issue should be 
based upon a solid nietalic foundation, such as 
will ensure an ability at all times to meet their 
liabilities promptly, and its quantity should be 
kept as nearly as practicable at the same am- 
ount, varying as it necessarily must to a small 
extent, with the seasons of shipment of our 
produce^to market, and the return of the pro- 
ceeds ; but this variation need not be such as to 
effect materially, the amount or value of their 
circulation- " * * * * 

To these views I now add, that in my 
opinion the precious metals should be the 
basis of whatever paper circulation may be 
authorised or tolerated by law. Like indi- 
vidual debtors, Banks should meet their lia- 
bilities honestly and promptly, and when- 
ever they fail to do eo, I hold it to be the 



uut> of the Legislative power to take effi- 
cient means tOjCompel them to do their du- 
ty. 

To your second and third mtcrrogatOnes, 

which are in the follewing words to wit: 

"2d. If so, from what source should paper 
money eminate; from (he State Governments 
or General Government? 

"3d If from the General Government, in 
what mode should the people receive it-- 
through the agency of a Bank, or otherwise ? " 
I answer that the States, having exer- 
cised the power of chartering' Banks of is- 
sue, from an early period of the Govern- 
ment, and with the general acquiescence of 
the people— and being in this respect, be- 
yond the power and control of the General 
Government — all must expect and concede 
that there must and will continue to be a 
State Bank paper circulation, \vhether a 
National Bank exists or not. There was a 
Slate ^Bank paper circulation during the 
whole" period of the existence of the two 
Banks of the United States— and if another 
National Bank were established, there 
would undoubtedly still continue to be such 
a circulation. Many of the State Banks 
have charters which have many years to 
run, and some of them I believe are 
perpetual. The establishment of a Nation- 
al Bank therefore, could not supercede them, 
but must, if established, issue a paper which 
would circulate with State Bank paper. The 
State Bank circulation would constitute much 
the largest amount of the aggregate paper cir- 
culation, and the experience of the twenty 
years of the existence of the late Bank ©f 
the United States proves, that the paper of 
State Banks, used as it was by the great 
mass of the people in their daily transac- 
tions, was at much more ruinous rates of de- 
preciation than it now is. The rates of ex- 
change between different sections of the 
' Union were higher, and exchanges more 
difficult to be obtained than they now are, 
without a Bank of the United States. I am 
therefore, in favor of a circulation to consist 
! of the prescious metals and the paper of 
specie paying State Banks, convertible on 
demand into specie — and should any such 
i Bank suspend payment, or refuse to redeem 
its circulation in specie, I would adopt the 
most rigid means within the power of the 
Legislature to compel such Bank to pay, 
and in the eventof failure, I would put it into 
a state of liquidation and wind it up. I will 
add further, that I would not yield my indi- 
vidual assent to the chartering of any future 
,Bank by State authority, without making 



the Stockholders liable in their individual 
estates for the payment of the papet which 
they issue ; I would place them upon a 
footing with other partnerships. Capitalists 
form partnerships and invest their money 
in merchandizing, manufacturing or other 
business, with a view to make profits, and 
are liable in their individual property for 
the payment of the debts of the firm, and I 
can see no good reason why capitalists who 
join together and invest their money in the 
business of Banking with a like view to 
make profit, should not in like manner be 
held liable to pay the joint debts of the Bank- 
ing corporation, or firm. -I am opposed to 
the chartering by Congress of a National 
incorporated Bank— I believe that Congress^ 
possesses no constitutional power to chartef'j 
such a Bank, and if it did, it would in my 
opinion, be inexpedient to exercise it. — 
These opinions I have long held. TThc 
reasons for them have been often coitsmun?- 
cated to the public in writing, in printed 
speeches, and in public debates before many- 
thousands of my fellow-citizens of Tennes- 
see, and I presume that it cannot be necessa- 
ry that I should here repeat them. >^^ 

To your fourth interrogatory,*RJ*lne fol- 
lowing words, viz: 

"Are you in favor of the Sub-Treasury Sy/s.- 
tern passed by Congress in 1840, and repealed iii 
1841." 

I answer that I am; and for my views as 
given at some length on the subject, I ras^f,. 
yoa to my two published addresses to "th^"- 
peopie of Tennessee," the one bearing date 
on the 3rd of April, and the other on the 
25ih of March 184L In my address of 
1839, I avowed myself to be "in favor of 
keeping the money of the people in the 
Treasury of the people under the care of 
officers elected by the people &- responsible 
to them, where it can at all times be com- 
manded for public purposes, and not in 
Banks, not elected by the people and not 
responsible to them, to be loaned out for 
private purposes." 

In speaking of a fiscal agent of 4jOvern- 
ment, I said in that address: 

"The Bank of the United States' had been 
tried, and proved faithless. The State Banks 
had been tried and proved faithless. Was it 
not time to deyise a system which should fulfill 
the requirements of the Constitution, and pre- 
vent any money from being "drawn from the 
Treasury but in consequence of appropriations 
made by law?" It has been the endeavor of the 
Preident and of the Republican party, for al- 
most two years, to introduce such a system. — 
They propose to establish an Independent Treas= 



to 



•ury— a Treasury independent of Banks— a 
Treasury in fact, and not in theory. They pro- 
pose that the Government shall keep its own 
money in its own Treasury, where it can, at 
all times, in peace and in war, be commanded 
for the public uses. To a proposition so simple, 
and which, in earlier days of the Republic, 
would have struck every mind as self evident, 
many objections have been started, some of 
them plausible, but none of them substantial." 
In my address of 1841, I said: 

"Another measure of the party in power is 
proclaimed to be the removal of the public mon- 
ey from the constitutional Treasury, where it is 
now kept, and where it has been kept safely 
under a financial system that hac thus far work- 
ed well, and which will no doubt continue to 
work well, if it be preserved. Where it is pro- 
posed to place the public money, if the Indepen- 
. dent Treasury law shall be repealed, has not 
■■^been distinctly avowed. It was undoubtedly at 
Vonc time, intended by many of the leading men 
>of the party, to place it in the United States 
Bank of Pennsylvania, and thus bolster up that 
rotten institution by furnishinj to it the money 
of the public to Bank and to speculate upon.— 
That Bank, which it will be remembered Mr. 
Biddie declared was stronger under the charter 
from Pennsylvania, that under than from the U- 
Dited States; and in reference to which Gea. 
IlaS^SGn, in his letter to Sherrod Williams, da- 
led^Rj^^j^Bend, May 1st, 1836," declared 
""Pennsylvania has wisely taken care to appro- 
priate to herself the benefits of its large capita)," 
it has, however, recently gone down, and now 
lies a heap of ruin in a state of utter prostration, 
if not of insolvency. 

The market price of its stock is down below 
twenty dollars in the hundred. They cannot 
therefore place the public money in the Bank. 
Where else will they put it? Most of the Banks 
of the United States have suspended specie 
payments. Will they place it in their keeping, 
and if they do, will they receive and pay out to 
the Pensioners, the labourers on the public 
works, and other public creditors, their depre- 
ciated paper? Do they mean that the taxes of 
the people, paid for the support of Government 
shall be furnished to these, or any other Banks, 
to be a part of their banking capital? 

If it is not to be so kept and used, where is it 
to be kept? There is no National Bank, and if 
one was created, it could not be put into opera- 
tion in less than twelve or eighteen months so as 
to receive them. And yet it is manifest that the 
immediate repeal of the Independent Treasury 
System, is one of the leading measures of the 
party in power. 

It is not now my purpose to enter upon the ar- 
gument of the policy of the Independent 
Treasury System, or of the necessity which led 
to Its adoption. These have been often presen. 
ted to my fellow-citizens, and if necessary, will 
he again, in my personal intercourse with them. 
It has been sometimes urged by my political op- 
ponent, that I, at one time, gave my support to 
the State Baak Deposite System. This was fully 
explained in my addresa to the people in 1839, 
In tliat address I stated ""that the late Bank of 
the United States had been tried and proved to 



be a faithless fiscal agent. For its long catalogue 
01 crimes and misdemeanors, GeneralJackion 
withdrew the public money from its keepine- 
and dismissed it as a fiscal agent of the Govern- 
ment. The State Banks were again employed. 
At that time they were generally m good credit 
1 hey paid specie for their notes, and it was be- 
lieved they would continue to do so, and that 
as between their employment and that of the 
Bank of the United States, they were to be pre- 
ferred.^ It was believed that they would be 
laithUr., and might be convenient fiscal agents 
1 he Government was willing to try them; upon 
trial they proved to be unfaithful, and the 
State Bank System of fiscal agency utterlv 
failed. ° J J 



It IS uunecessary to enquire whether the fail- 
tire of the State Bank Deposite System in 1837 
happened from accident, an inherent defect in 
the system, from inevitable necefsity, by design 
or by fraud. It is enough that it has once hap- 
pened to put the Government on its guard a- 
gainst a recurrence for the future. After the 
Bank of the United States had been dismissed 
as the fiscal agent of the Government, and the 
public money had been placed in the State 
Banks, it was deemed to be proper to pass a law 
"regulating the deposite of the money of the 
Lnited States in certain I'jcal Banks." A Bill 
with that object was accordingly introduced at 
the session of Congress of 1834-'35. It was ri- 
olently opposed by all the friends of the Bank 
of the United States, and all those who were in 
favor of restoring the public money to the' 
keeping of that institution. After a protracted 
discussion, and after the Bill had been matured 
and was ready for the final action of the House,'' 
a proposition of amendment was made by a gen-' 
tleman, (Mr. Gordon) who disapproved there-' 
moval of the dcposites and was avowedly in fa- 
vor of their restoration to the Bank of the U- 
nited States— to dispense with the use of all 
Banlfs as fiscal agents. The proposition was 
presented in a crude and undigested form. It 
provided no vaults or other place in which the 
public money could be safely kept. It provided 
no punishment for the fraudulent or improper 
use of it. It contained none of the guards and 
checks of the present Independent Treasury 
law, by which the public money is so amply se- 
cured in the Treasury, against peculation and 
Iraud. It was a naked proposition without de- 
tails, and had it been adopted, would have been 
wholly impracticable. It was not brought for- 
ward in a manner, or under circumstances to 
attract the serious consideration of any consid- 
erable portion of either party in the House, and 
the highest evidence that it was only intended 
to embarrass the measure before the House, 
consists in the fact, that all who voted for it, 
with a single exception, were the friends of the 
Bank of the United States, and in favour of res- 
toring the custody of the public money to that 
institution. The fact that it was intended only 
to embarrass the measure before the House, and 
to coerce the restoration of the deposites to the 
Bank of the United States, has been distinctly 
admitted by one of the friends of the Bank, who 
voted for it, (Mr, Wise, of Va.) in a letter ad- 
dressed to his constituents, on the 24th of 
March, 1810. In that letter he says;--"] am 



i. 



i.r 



askej whether I voted for what is called f^or- 
doD's proposition in 1837, and for my explana- 
tion of that vote." And after making some 
explanation, he adds:— "And I now declare that 
I would not have voted for either of these prop- 
ositions if there had been the least prospect of 
its passage. This I expressly declared to Gen'l. 
Gordon in relation to his amendment, when he 
first named it to me." 

The struggle at that Session (1835) was be- 
tween the Bank of the Unitod States on the one 
hand, and the regulation of the deposites by 
law in the State Banks on the other. The 
friends of the Bank of the United States, insist- 
ed that the deposites should be restored to that 
institution. The opponents of the Bank insist- 
ed that so utterly faithless as a fiscal agent had 
that Bank proved itself to be, that they ought 
not to be restored, and that in the existing state 
of things, it was proper to pass a law, to regu- 
late their safe-keeping in the State Banks — 
calculating, doubtless, that if no law was passed, 
that that system of deposite would soon get into 
confusion and the Government be compelled to 
return the public money to the Bank of the U- 
nited States. 

The condition of the State Banks at that 

' time, and their condition after they suspended 
specie payments in 1837, was widely different. 
Whilst they paid specie and faithfully perform- 
ed their duties as fiscal agents, it was considered 
that their employment was to be prefered to that 
of the Bank of the United States. When they 
ceased to pay specie, and faithfully to discharge 
their duties to the public, they were dismissed. 

I Whilst they paid specie the friends of the Bank 
of the United States objected to their employ- 
ment, but when they failed to pay specie they 

I became their apologists and advocate. On the 

i other hand, whilst they paid specie the oppo- 
nents of the Bank of the United States were 
willing to try them, but when they failed to do 
80, they were unwilling longer to continue the 

' deposite of the public money with them. The 
Bank of the United States and the States Banks 

I have both been tried, and proved faithless; the 
Government learned wisdom from experiance, 
and proposed to establish an Independent 

iTreasury — a Tresury independent of Banks— a 

.constitutional Treasury in fact, and not in 
theory only. Such a Treasury has been estab- 
lished, and I see no reason wjiy it should be 

' discontinued, and the Government resort back 
again to the Bank deposite system, either 
State or National." 

I now only add — that I have seen no rea- 
son to change my views as e.\pressed in 
these addresses. The Constitution of the 
United States contemplates a public Treasu- 
ry. It provides that "no money shall be 
drawn from the Treasury, but in conse- 
quence of appropriations made by law," 
Such a Treasury is provided by the Inde- 
pendent Treasury Act, called by you "the 
Sub-Treasury System." It provided that 
the public money, between the periods of 
collection and disbursement, should be kept 
iiin the vaults of the Treasury at Washington, 



and in strong boxes provided at the princi-. 
pal poinis of collection, that it should be un- 
der the lock &- key of the Government — un- 
der the care ofofficers elected or chosen by 
the people according to the forms of the consti- 
ituiion of the U. S. that these officers should be 
placed under bonds with approved security, 
be under oaths, and be subject to ignomini- 
ous punishment by long imprisonment in 
the common jail or penitentiary for a viola* 
tion of their duty. The system had work- 
ed well and was working well, when the 
party in power, at their e.xtra session of 
Congress in 1841 repealed it. it is an er- 
ror to attribute the defalcation of 6'ii;ar^trow^ 
and others to this system. They occurred 
long before the Independent law was pass- 
ed. Swariwow^s defalcation commenced,, 
(though he was not detected until after- 
wards) during the period when the Bank of 
the U. States was the fiscal agent depositor 
ry of the public money. The party in pow- 
er repealed the Independen. Treasury act,, 
but have provided no substitute in its place. 
They have been in power more than two 
years, and where yet is the substitute which 
they have provided? They have left the 
public money to be kept under the act of 
1789 — which provides that it "shall be re- 
ceived and kept by the Treasury of the 
United States.?' They have left it to the 
discretin of their President, Mr. Tyler, to 
direct the place and manner in which it 
shall be kept. When the same thing oc- 
curred after the removal of the deposites 
from the late Bank of ihe United States by 
Gen. Jackson, and before the act was pass- 
ed regulating their keeping in the State 
Banks, the same party charged that there 
was a union of the purse &- the sword in the 
hands of the President which was dangerous 
to liberty, and yet, the moment they obtaia- 
ed possession of power, they did the same 
thing themselves. The charge that there 
was a union of purse and sword was false. 
They however, made it, and if they still 
maintain its truth, they have themselves 
united them. 

But the party in power may say, that 
they have attempted to furnish a substitute 
by passing Mr. Claifs Bank Bill "To in- 
corporate subscribers to the Fiscal Bank of" -fe^ 
Ihe United States," vetoed by Mr. Tyler. *' . 
That Bill proposed to make that Bank the ,,' 
fiscal agent and keeper of the moneys of the * 
United Slates. It provides that the "depos- 
its of the money of the United States" 
should be made in that Bank and that "all 



12 



public moneys on deposite in said Bank, or 
standing on its books lo ihe credit of the 
Treasury, shall be taken and deemed to be 
in the Treasury of the U. States." This 
Bank then— by 3Ir. Clay^s Bill was to be 
the Treasury of the United States. Mr. 
Clay's Bill provided that the United States 
was to subscrilie for one third of the Capital 
Stock and other Stockholders for the remain- 
ing two thirds of the stock. It provided 
that the Bank should be governed by nine 
Directors, three of whom were to be appoint- 
ed by the United States, and six of whom 
by the other Stockholders. The public 
ifloney was to be placed in its keeping, and 
when there, was declared to be considered 
in the Treasury of the United States. The 
Treasury of the United States was thus to 
be placed, out of the power and control of 
the Goveriiment and in the keeping of six 
put of nine Bank Directors not elected or 
appointed by the Government or people of 
tlie United States, owing no responsibility 
to either, under no bonds, no oaths, and sub- 
ject to no punishment for an abuse of their 
trust. Such was the fiscal agency by Mr. 
Clay's Bank Bill. I fully submit to you. 
Gentlemen, whether such a treasury or 
plan of fiscal agency, is one which you can 
approve, or which you prefer to the Inde- 
pendent Treasury System, under %vhich 
the Government kept control of its own 
money by placing it in a Treasury in fact, 
and not in theory only, under Ihe care and 
control of responsible agents, selected by 
the people according to the constitution and 

Jaws. 

Your 5ih and 6ih Interrogatories are in 
the following words, to wit: 

"5th. Are you in favor of a tariff or direct 
taxes for the support of the General Govern- 
ment." 

"Gth. If a tariff, do you approve of such a 
larilFas would give protection to home indus- 
try against foreign industry?" 

I answer that I am opposed to a system 
of direct taxation, and am in favor of a mod- 
erate scale of duties, laid by a taritF on im- 
ported goods for the purpose of raising the 
revenue which may be needed for the eco- 
ijomical administration of the Government. 
in fixing the rates of a tarilT, my opinion is, 
that the object in view should be to raise 
the revenue needed by Government leaving 
the interests engaged in manufactures, to 
enjoy the incidental advantage which tlie 
levy of .such duties will aliord them. If by 
^'giving protection to liome industry," you 



mean to assert the distinct principle, that a 
tariff is to be laid soley or in any extent not 
for revenue, but for the protection of capital 
ists who have made their investments in 
manufacturing establishments, so as to com- 
pel the consumers of their articles, the ag- 
riculturists, mechanics, persons employed 
in commerce and all other pursuits to pay 
higher prices for them, then I say that lam 
opposed to such a principle, and to any tarifl 
which recognizes it. "Home industry," 
terms so often used by the advocates of the 
protective tariff system, are comprehensive 
in their meaning, and by a just legislation 
should be made to embrace the industry em 
ployed in agriculture, in the mechanic arts, 
in commerce and all other pursuits, as well 
as the industry employed in manufacturesj 
I have at all times been opposed to prohibi 
tory or high protective tariff laws, designed 
not for revenue, but to advance the interests 
of one portion of the people employed in 
manufactures, by taxing another and much 
the larger portion, thus making the many 
tributary to the increased wealth of the 
few. I amopposed to the tariff act of the late 
Congress, considering it to be in many re- 
spects of this character, — and, indeed, so 
highly protective upon some articles as tti 
prohibit their importation into the country, 
altogether. I am infavor of repealing that 
act, and restoring tlie compromise tarilF act 
of March 2d, 1833; believing as I do, that it 
would produce more revenue than the pres- 
ent law, and that the incidental protection 
aflorded by the 20 per cent duty, especially 
when this would be paid in cash, and on the 
home valuation, will aflbrd sufficient prO' 
tcction to the manufacturers, and all that 
they ought to desire, or to which they are 
entitled. 

Your last interrogatory is in the following 
words, to wit: 

"7th. Are you in favor of the election of 
United States Senators by joint ballot of both 
Houses of the Legislature? If not, by what 
mode should they be elected?" 

[ answer, that by the Constitution of the 
United States it is provided that "The times, 
places, and manner of holding elections for 
Senators and Representatives shall ha prc-< 
scribed in each State hv ihe Leeislalvrc 
thereof, but that Congress may at any time 
by law, make or alter such regulations, ex- 
cept as lo the places of choosing Senators." 
The Legislature of this State have never hy[ 
law prescribed the tmies, places or manner 
of electing Senators, Our practice has been 



13 



to elect by joint ballot. In other States a 
different mode has been adopted, and in 
some of them (he practice has been to choose 
by the concurrent vote ot'the two Houses — 
each House acting in its separate and dis- 
tince Legislative character, as it does in 
passing laws or performing any other Legis- 
lative act. Senators elected jn each of these 
modes have been permitted to take their 
seats and serve as such — no constitutional 
question as to the "j/m/mcr" of their elec- 
tion, so far as I know, having been raised. 
I think then, in the absence of any Lagisla- 
tive provision prescribing the "ma/JMer," 
that it rests in the sound discretion of each 
House of the Legislature, to select the mode 
or manner, which in its judgement will best 
subserve the public interest. The mode by 
concurrent uoicofeacli House is conceded- 
]y constitutional, and if by insisting upon it 
as the preferable mode — that be the only 
means of effecting a great public good, or 
preventing a great public injury — such as 
preventing the election of persons to the 
Senate of the United States who conceal 
their opinions upon public subjects interest^ 
ingtothc people, and who refused to make 
tlaem known, or to say whether they adinit 
or deny the right of instructioa, when res- 
pectfulls' interrogated upon these points by 
any portion of the constituent body. In such 
cases, or similar, I hold that either branch 
of the Legislature, would only be justified in 
adhering, but it would be due to the rights 
of their constituents, whose interests were 
to be deeply effected, that they should 
adhere to ihc 7nanner, by which these rights 
whould be protected and preserved. The 
chief, if not the only value of the liirht of 
puffrage consists in the fact, that it may be 
exercised iindcrstandlngli/ by the costitu 
entbody. It is so, whether the immediate 
constituency consists of the Legislature, as 
in the case of the election of the U. States 
Senators, or of the people in llieir primary ca- 
pacity, in the elections of their ExQputive 
or Legislative agents. In either case the 
constituent has the right to know the opin- 
ions of the canaidate before he casts his 
vote. 

Ihavc now, gentlemen, answered your in- 
lerogalories. I have also answered certain 
other interrogatories propounded through 
the public papers at Memphis, by a portion 
of your fello'v-citzens of Shelby County — 
and as the answer to each set of interrog- 
atories, is, in some degree, connected with 
the answers to the other— -some of the inter- 



rogatories in both being upon the same sub- 
jects — I shall forward both answers by iho 
next mail which leaves for Mempiiis, that 
they may be published. 

I am gentlemen, with high respect, 
Your obed't serv't. 

JAMES K. POLK. 



CJov. Folk's liCtter 

On the Public Expenditures, Public Debt 

X (XV lit ^ZjC 

TO THE PEOPLE OF TENNESSEE. 

The subjects of the public expenditures, the 
public debt, the tariff, and P>ank of the United 
States, having been discussed by my compet- 
itor and myself in the pending gubernatorial 
election, and diiTering as we did incur respec- 
tive statements of facts upon some of these 
subjects, it was at mj instance that it was 
agreed at Carrolville, on tlie 12th of April, 
1843, that we would write out and print our 
respective views and opinions. 

I affirm that the present administration 
have not redeemed the piedges made to tlie peo- 
ple prior to the Presidential election of 1 840 
that they would in the event of tlieir success' 
reduce the public expenditures. They ciiarged 
in 1 840, that the expenditures of the late ad- 
ministration were recklessly and profligately 
extravagant, and that they would bring them 
down. Mr. Clay in his speech delivered at 
Taylorsville, in the county of Hanover, in the 
State of Virginia, on the 27th of June, 1840, 
promised that <'a pruning knife, long, broad, 
and sharp, should be applied to- every Depart- 
ment of the Government. There is abundant; 
scope for honest and skilful' surgery. The 
annual expenditure may in reasonable time be 
brought down from its present amount of about 
forty millions to near one-third of tliat sum." 
Similar promises— some of them even more 
extravagant— were made by other leading 
men, and by leading journals of the same par- 
ty. 

They have been in power more than two 
years, and I affirm thit, instead of reducing, 
they have largely increased the public expen- 
ditures; and this I proceed to establish. I 
will first examine the expenditures of the year 
'40, being the last year of Mr. Van Buren's 
term, and the expenditures of the year 1841 
and 1842, being the first two years of the term 
of the party in power; and will then examine 
the expenditures of 1837, 1838. and 1839, 
being the first three years of Mr. Van Buren 's 
term, 

Mr EwiNG, the Secretary of the Treasury 



14 



appointed by General Harrison, in his report 
on the Stale of the finances made to tho extra 
Beesion of Congress, on the 2d of June, 1841, 
states the precise amount of the expenditures 
for 1840, as they appeared on the books of the 
Treasury, as follows, viz: 

"The expenditures for the same year ( 1 840) 
were for — 
Civil list, foreign intercourse 

and miscellaneous $6,492,030 98 

Military Department 10,866,246 45 

Naval Department 6,031,088 88 

Public Debt ' 11,982 77 

And outstanding warrants is- 
sued prior to 1st January, 
1841 1,116,334 28 

Treasury notes redeemed in- 
cluding interest 4,045,802 05 



Deduct from this aggregate 
sum the "Public Debt;" 
outstanding warrants, 
and Treasury notes re- 
deemed; not chargeable to 
ordinary expenditures of 
the year 

Making the precise amount 
of ordinary expenditures 



$27,863,475 41 



5,474,119 10 



for 1840 



$22,389,356 31 



Mr. Fillmore, the late whig chairman of the 
Comniittee of Ways and Means, in a speech 
delivered by him in the House of Representa- 
tives, on the 9th of June, 1 842, states the or- 
dinary expenses for ihat year, at this precise 
sum. 

The expenditures for 1811, stated by the 
Register of the Treasury in an official commu- 
nication dated "Treasury Department, Regis- 
ter's Office, February 8, 1843," are as fol- 
lows, viz: 

Civil, miscellaneous and for- 
eign intercourse $6,377,153 49 
Military Establishment 13,594,796 66 
Naval establisnment 5,910,322 67 
Interest, &c., on Public Debt 99,497 84 
Redemption of Treasury Notes 

including interest 5,501,190 90 



Trust funds 

Making the aggregate 
sura of 

Deduct from this aggregate 
sum "interest on Public 
Debt, Treasury Notes 
redeemed with interest, 



314,567 47 



11,797,530 03 



and trust funds," ma- 
king the amount of ordi- 
nary expenditures for 
1841 



5,915,256 211 



Making the amount of ordi- 
nary expenditures for 
1841 $25,882,373 8^ 

Take from this sum the or- 
dinary expenditures for 
1840, as shown above 22,389,356 31 



Leaves the increase of ex- 
penditures for 1841 over 
1840 of $3,492,817 51 

But it may be said that a part of the year 
1841, viz; — from the Ist of January to the 3d 
of March of that year inclusive, belonged to 
Mr. Van Buren's administration, and that the 
present administration are only responsible 
for the expenditures subsequent to the 3d of 
March, 1841. 

To meet this Buggestion should it be made, 
I will now state from an official document — 
laid before the late Congress by the Secreta- 
ry of the Treasury at lis second session. Doc. 
No. 259 — the amount which was expended 
by the party in power from the 4th of March, 
'41 to the 4th of March, '42, viz: 
Civil, miscellaneous and for- 
eign intercourse $6,292,211 56 
Military Establishment 13,635,411 95 
Naval Establishment 6,300,592 95 
Treasury notes and old funded 

debt 7,038,187 91 



$33,266,403 47 
Deduct from this aggregate 
sum "Treasury notes and 
old funded debt" 7,038,187 91 



Leaves the expenditures for 
one year commencing on 
the 4th of March, '41, 
and ending on the 3d of 
March, '43, the sum of 26,228,215 56 

Take from this sum the ex- 
penditures for *40, as 
shown above 22,389,356 31 



Leaves the increase of ex- 
penditures for the year 
from the 4th March, '41 
to the 4th March, '42, 
over the expenditures of 
'40, the sum of $3,838,859 25 



But it has been «aid,that the appropria- 



u 



tlons lor '41, were made by Mr. Van Buren's 
expiring Congress, before their adjournment 
on the 3d of March of that year, and that the 
Whig party expended the appropriations which 
they had made for the year. To this I an- 
swer, that the Congress which expired on the 
3d of March, '41, did make appropriations 
which they deemed to be sufficient for the 
public service for that year. With the sums 
thus appropriated the Whig party were not 
satisfied, but called an extra session of Con- 
gress together which cost the nation in defray- 
ing their own expenses 376,477 dollars and 
60 cts — and that Congress at that extra ses- 
sion, made additional appropriations for the 
service of '41, over and above the amount 
which had been deemed necessary by the pre- 
ceding Congress, of the sum of 5,043,705 dol- 
lars 02 cts. 

The expenditures for '42, as stated by the 
Register of the Treasury in an official com- 
munication, dated "Treasury Department, 
Register's OfBce, February 8, 1843," are as 
follows, viz: 

Civil, miscellaneous and for- 
eign intercourse §6,673,978 81 
3Iilitary Establishment 8,828,894 14 
Naval Establishment 8,334,932 66 
Interest, &c, on Public Debt 4,1 1,059 32 
Redemption of Treasury Notes 

including interest 8,063,709 61 

Trust funds 309,622 35 



Deduct from this aggregate 
sum, "interest on PubKc 
Debt,redemption of Trea- 
sury Notes, including in- 
terest and trust funds" 



§^32,622,196 89 



8,783,3S1 2S 



Leaving for ordinary expen- 
ditures of '42 $23,838,815 61 

Take from this sum the ex- 
penditures for '40, as 
shown above 22,389,356 31 



Leaves an increase of expen- 
ditures for '42 over 
'40 of 



S 1,44 9,4 59 30 



It will be observed loo. that in the expen- 
ditures of '42, the item of "Interest, &c, on 
Public Debt" is swelled up to 41 1,059 dol- 
lars 32 cts — much the larger portion of which 
consists undoubtedly, of interest paid on the 
new funded debt, which the party in power 
have created since they came in, which ought 
properly to bo charged to them as an increaeed 



item of expenditure. If this be done, the ex- 
cess of expenditure for '42 over ^'40, will 
be increased by that sum. 

It cannot then be controverted, that the ex- 
penditures of '41 and '42, have been in- 
creased over those of '40. That they have 
been unnecessarily increased, ig further mani- 
fest from the fact, that the late administration 
contemplated and recommended a reduci ion 
below the expenditures of '40. The Secre- 
tary of the Treasury in this report made to 
Congress on the 7th of December, '40 on 
the state of the finances, and tubmiiting esti- 
mates of appropriation for '4 1 , proposes a 
reduction, and assigns the reason why such 
reduction should and ought to be made. In 
that report, the Secretary of the Treasury 
states: 

«*It is believed that the ordinary expenses 
of '41, ought to fall some millions below 
those of '40— as the pensions have dimin- 
ished by deaths, fewer Indians remain to be 
removed, several expensive public buildings 
have been mostly finished, and hostilities with 
the Semmoles must be near to a close." 

The Secretary accordingly in that report 
estimates "the expenditures for '41— for 
ordinary purposes— if Congress make no reduc- 
tion in the appropriations, requested by the 
different departments at $19,250,000." 

This was the sum which was deemed to 
be ample for ordinary expenditures for 1841. 
The whig Congress met in extra session, 
and not only made new appropriations to the 
amount of "^5,043,705 02, but they expend- 
ed for ordinary purposes, as has been alrea- 
dy shown, for 1841, the sum of $25,882,- 
273 82. 

Take from this the above es- 
timate of the expenditures 



deemed proper 



19,250,000 00 



Leaves an excess of expen- 
diture by the whig Con- 
gress over the estimate of 
the Secretary of the Trea- 
sury of the sum of 6,632,273 83 



This is the practical application by the 
whig Congress of Mr. Clay's pruning knife, 
which in his Hanover Speech, he promised 
would be used in cutting down the expendi- 
tures of Government. 

To evade the force of these truths which 
cannot be controverted, without falsifying 
the official records, from which they are ta- 
ken, some of the leading men and public 
journals of the whig party, go back to the 



If) 



commencement of Mr. Van Buren's admin- 
istration, and parade before the public, not 
the ordinary expenditures as made, but the 
gross sums, without abstracting from them 
the public debt and Treasury notes with in- 
terest redeemed, and the trust funds, which 
all know constitute no part of the ordinary 
expenditures of Government. The chief 
document to which they are in the habit of 
refering, is one which has of late become 
somewhat celebrated. It is called by them, 
House Document No. 31, laid before the 
House and ordered to be printed by Mr. 
FiLLMOKE the late whig Chairman of the 
committee of ways and means. From one 
column of that Document, they read and print 
the gross sums without deducting, as is done 
in another column of the same Document, 
the public debt, Treasury notes and trust- 
funds paid out for 1837 and 1839. By this 
process they state the expenditures for 1837, 
to be 37 millions and a fraction; for 1838, 
39 millions and a fraction; for 1839, 37 mil- 
lions and a fraction, and here they stop. 
By turning to other columns of the same ta- 
ble, they, will see that the amount of "pay- 
ments on account of public debt and trust 
funds," for 1837, were ^5,G7G,856 97; the 
same items for 1838 they would find were 
$7,911,042 16; and the same items for 1839, 
they would find were $12,171,219 71. By 
making those deductions, in the same way 
that the same items, (not being properly i- 
tems of expenditure) have been deducted 
from the years 1840, 1811 , and 1812, as a- 
bove set forth, the statement stands as may 
be found in another column of the same doc- 
ument No. 31 — as follows, to wit : 

For 1837 $31,588,180 18 

For 1838 31,544,396 19 

For 1839 25,443,716 94 

And this same Mr. Fillmore, the late whig 
Chairman of the committee of ways and 
means, in a speech delivered by him in the 
house cf representatives, on the 9;h of June 
1842, is compelled to make, and does make, 
these corrections. But these are not the 
only deductions which arc to be made from 
these years. There were causes of extra- 
ordinary expenditures which did not exist in 
the years 1841, and 1842 as stated by the 
Secretary of the Treasury in his Report of 
the 7th December 1840, which has been aU 
ready referred to. The chief items of an 
extraordinary character, and which do not 
belong to the ordinary expenses of every 
year, are the cost of Indian wars, the pay- 
ment for Indian lands, the cost of removal of 



Indians, the erection of Ctistom Houses in 
some of the principal cities, the erection of 
buildings for new Treasury and Patent of- 
tFices, and a Penitentiary House at Wash- 
ington. These and other extraordinary 
items amounted to many millions, which 
ought to be deducted. 

Mr. John Bell of this State, in a speech 
made in Congress, as early as January 20th 
1841, admitted— that "For the service of 
the Florida war in 1838, there were appro- 
priated and expended, upwards of six mil- 
lions OF poLLAEs. This all must admit 
should be deducted from the ordinary expen- 
ditures of 1838. In confirmation of the ad- 
mission here made, a distinguished member 
of Congress (Mr. John W.Jones of Virginia; 
late chairman of the committee of v/ays and 
means) on the r2lh of Ju[y 1841, made a 
fair exposition of some of these items of ex- 
traordinary expenditures, not belonging to 
the ordinary expenditures of any year; and 
I here give it as conveying the facts, and 
my own views in as conclusive and clear a 
light as I could present them; to wit: 



"I ask if it was not in fairness due to the 

"late administration to have stated what we 

"here all know to be true — that, while the ex- 

"pendilures were large, they were rendered 

"necessary by extraordinary causes, which had 

"not existed for a series of years before, and 

"are not, I truse, likely to operate as a drain 

"upon the Tresnry hereafter. In confimation 

"of (his, you have only to turn your attention 

"to the millions v.'iiich have been expended in 

"toe suppression of Indian hostilities, and for 

"the removal of the various Indian tribes be- 

"yond our territorial limits; with a view in the 

"one case, to protect our defenceless inhabi- 

'tants from the crual barbarities jof a savage 

"foe; from the tomahawk and scalping knife; 

"and in the other, to restore peace and quiet 

"to a large portion of our country, who had a 

''rio-ht to claim protection at the hands of this 

"Governmcn . And who is there of any party 

"that would not have been willing to draw the 

"last dollar fom the public Treasury if he could, 

"by such extravagance, have saved but one wo- 

"man, orone child, from the butchery of (he 

"Savage? During the late administration there 

"were expended upon these objects $J3,714, 

"317. The further sum of §8,795,826 has been 

"expended in the purchase of laud from the 

"various Indian tribes, and in extinguishing 

"Indian titles within the States, thus putting 

"it in our power to get rid of borders of ruthless 

"savages, and to receive in the rich domain 

"which has been acquired an ample equivalent. 

"The list of expenditures, also, shows that the 

"sum of $3,52(1,624 was applied to the erection 

"of durable fire-proof buildings for the preserva- 

"tion of the public archives, records &c. Sir, 

"since you and I have been members of this 

"body, wc have been waked up at dead hours 

"of the night from our beads of rest by the 



17 



"alarm of the firebelU, to behold our public 
"buildiDgs wrapped in flames, and the morning 
♦'sun has riesn upon the smoking ruins. It has 
"been principally to replace these buildings, 
"and to provide custom houses in our large 
"commercial cities, that this expenditure has 
"been rendered necessary." 

These statements are verified by the pub- 
lic records. Make, then, the deductions of 
these and other extraordinary items and al- 
so of the public debt and treasury notes re- 
deemed, and trust funds, and the gross sums 
quoted from one column, without reference 
to the other columns of Mr. Fillmore's cele- 
brated House Doc. No. 31, and it will be 
found that the ordinary expenditures for the 
years 1837, '38 and '39, as well as 1840, 
are below the ordinary expenditures for 
1841 and '42. 

It has been vaguely and erroneously 
charged in the present canvass for Govern- 
or, that Mr. Van Buren found upwards of 
$31,000,000 in the treasury when he came 
into office, and that he spent or wasted it, 
and that on that account his administration 
is not entitled to credit for public debt, Treas- 
ury notes redeemed and trust funds. To ex- 
pose this error, it is only necessary to refer 
to the report of the Secretary of the Treas- 
ury of the 6th Dec. 1837— in which the 
Secretary after setting forth the nominal 
ballance appearing on the books of the 
Treasury, states: 

"Before adverting to other topics, it will be 
proper to explain what portion of this balance 
■will not immediately be either available or ap- 
plicable to public purposes." 

"The first three instalments of deposites, with 
the several States, which have recently been 
placed with them to the credit of the Treasurer 
for safe keeping, in conformity to the provisions 
of the act of 23d June 1836, are included in it " 

"As the subsequent law of Oct. 14, 1837, 
prohibits the recall of these deposites, till oth- 
erwise directed, this large amount will, till 
then, be unavailable for any purposes of the 
General Government. It is $28,101,644 97." 

The Secretary of the Treasury in that 
report, after enumerating other unavailable 
funds, says: 

"If the aggregate of all these, amounting to 
$33,101,644 97 be deducted from the balance of 
§34,187,143 29 above mentioned, the residue 
of the public money, that, on the 1st of January 
next, will probably be then both available and 
applicable to general purposes will be $1,085, 
498 32." 

There is one other fact connected with 

the expenditures for 1837, '38 and '39, 

which it is proper should be stated. The 

^ Executive at the commencement of each 

regular session of Congress, submits an es- 



ticnate of the sums deemed to be necessary 
for the service of the ensuing year. Con- 
gress may ia their discretion appropriate 
less or more than the sums asked . It ap- 
pears that for these years the appropriations 
made, greatly exceeded the estimates. The. 
precise amount of excess for each year may- 
be seen by reference to a report made by 
the Secretary of the Treasury to Congress 
on the 2d March 1841, being No. 226, of 
Senate Document, 2d Session 26th Con- 
gress. It appears from the report that the 
Executive estimated for the service of 1837, 
the sum of $22,720,107 37, that Congress 
exceeded that estimate m the appropriations, 
by the sum of $ 17,035,991 18. For 1838, 
the estimate was $22,735,249 19. Con- 
gress exceeded this sum in their appropria- 
tions, by the sum of $12,566,678 80. For 
1839, the estimate was $23,509 95. Con- 
o-ress exceeded this sum in their appropria- 
tions by the sum of $1,439,021 11. One 
cause of this increase may have -been the 
extraordinary calls upon the Treasury for 
the objects already mentioned. Whatever 
the cause may have been, the fact is well 
known, that the body of the party now in 
power in Congress, and especially from the 
northern and eastern sections of the Union, 
the Journals of Congress prove, have for 
many years, as well during Gen. Jackson's 
& Mr. Van Buren's administrations, as du- 
ring the two years they have held powec 
themselves, voted for the largest appropria- 
tions which have been made. The truth is, 
that large expenditures constitute a part of 
their settled policy . 

Intimately connected with the public ex- 
penditure \s\he public debt, which the par- 
ty in power have contracted within the last 
two years. The following official statements 
from the Treasury prove the precise a- 
mount of increase from the 4th of March 
1841— up to the 13th February 1843.^ The 
following are the statements from the Treas- 
ury, viz: 

1 . ^^ Amount of the Public Debt on the 
4th o/ilfarcA, 1841." 

"Old funded and unfunded debt; 
Funded debt— int. and principal, |296,642 05 
Unfunded debt— old Treasury 

Notes 4,595 29 

Mississippi Stock 4,320 09 

Registered Debt 26,622 44-35,537 73 

Debt of the corporate cities of the 
District of Columbia, assumed 
by the United States 1,500,000 00 

Treasury Notes 5,648,512 40. 



Total debt. 



|7,480^> ^ 



18 



Tre&surv Depatlmeht, Register's Office, f 
^ ^ February 13, 1843, < 

T. L. SMITH, Register. 

2. Siatment of the Public Debt, VSth Feb. 

1843. 

Old funded and unfunded debt: 

Funded debt— int. and principal $288,306 60 

Unfunded debt— old Trea- 
sury note* $4,314 44 

Misaissippi Stock. 4,320 09 

Registered debt 26,622 44-33,259 9/ 

Debt of tke corporate cities of the 
District of Columbia assumed 
ty the United Stales 1 ,380,000 00 

Treasury notes 11,711,210 17 

iLoaD of i841 and 1842 13,974, 445 II 

Total debt $27,389,221 65 

Treasury Department, Register's Office, > 
February 13, 1843. S 
T.L. SMITH, Register." 

Take the amount as here slated, on the 
4th of March 1841, from the amount on the 
13th February 1843— and the precise 
amount of increase of deii will be ascer- 
tained — ^^viz: 

Am't on the l3th Feb. 1 843 $27 ,389,22 1 65 
Am't on 4lh March 1 841 7,480,592 1 8 



-Showing the precise amount 
of increase of pubhc debt 
to be $19,908,529 74 

And how is it possible that this plain re- 
cord taken from the books of the Treasury, 
can be contradicted or falsified.^ And yet 
attempts are made to do this. Upon sever- 
al occasions during the pendency of the pres- 
ent gubernatorial canvass, the statement of 
an address made by a whig meeting held in 
Virginia, has been relied on to prove that a 
distmguished member of Congress of the dem- 
ocratic party, (Mr. Charles J . Ingkrsoll, 
of Penn.) had admitted that the whig party 
had inherited 22 millions of this debt from 
Mr. Van Buren's administration. This au- 
thority 1 presume will not again be relied 
on, especially after the public shall have 
seen or read the following contradiction of 
itfromJVIr. In^ersoZi himself: 

Philabelphia, March 24, 1843. 
Sir; — 1 am much obliged by your letter 
of the I6lh instant, because it enables me 
thro' you — you are at liberty to use this an- 
swer as you please — to deny and refute the 
totally unfounded statement which you in- 
form me appears in the address of the whigs 
of Virginia, that 1 acknowledged, in an ad- 
dress to my constituents, that the public debt 
at the close of Mr. Van Buren's administra- 
tion, was twcnty-iwo inillious of dollars.-- 



I never said so, wrote so or thouht ao, or any 
thing at all like such an acknowledgment. 
I have not seen the whig address you refer to, 
& have not at hand the letter to my constitu- 
ents to which I suppose it may allude. In 
that letter, I believe I stated the public debt 
in September, 1842, at twenty-two millions 
of dollars; which was done for the purpose of 
showing that it had risen to that amount in 
about one year after two sessions of Con- 
gress of whig rule; the first act of which Con- 
gress was for borrowing twelve millions of 
dollars, followed up afterwards by a second 
act for borrowing five million more, and then 
a third act for converting si.x millions of the 
loan into an issue of treasury notes bearing 
interest at six per cent., because the loan 
could not be negotiated at par— one of these 
acts of Congress containing authority hith- 
erto unheard of in time of peace and plenty, 
to dispose of the loan under par. At least 
seventeen millions of the twenty two 1 sta- 
ted, were therefore, whig debts, and so I 
stated, and, according to what I have always 
understood and believed, the only debt left 
by Mr. Van Buren's administration was a 
treasury note debt of about five millions, 
which the income of the country would have 
paid off and extinguished without difficulty 
or further appropriation. 

lam respectfully, 

Your obedient servant, 

C. J. INGERSOLL. 

It will be seen fiom the official statement 

of the Register of the Treasury, that of the 

7,480,692 dollars, and 18 cents, stated to 

be the debt on the4lh of March, 1841, that 

the administration of Mr. Van Buren is only 

chargeable with the amount of Treasury 

notes outstanding, being 5,648,512 dollars 

and 40 cts.— the other items having decend- 

ed from previous administrations. From 

this latter sum should be deducted also, 572,- 

718 dollars and 46 cents, that being the 

amount stated by Mr. Ewing in his report 

to the extra session of Congress to be in the 

Treasury on the 4th March 1841, and also 

thesum'of about half a million of dollars 

which was in fact in the Treasury, being the 

proceeds of one of the bonds of the late bank 

of the United States, held by the United 

States, which had been paid, but which by 

mistake or omission Mr. Secretary Ewing 

in a subsequent Report to the Senate of the 

United States admitted he had failed to state 

to be in the Treasury. It is now, however, 

for the first time attempted by public men 

of repuldlion lo make it appear thai 'appro- 



19 



priations' and 'public debt' are synonimous 
terms. "It has been left to these days of 
enlightened economy to make the discovery 
that this (appropriations) is a debt." An 
appropriation is an authority by law , to draw 
money from the Treasury and apply it to 
specified objects and purposes. By the 
Constitution no money can be "drawn from 
the Treasury but in consequence of appro- 
priations made by law." Though the 
Treasury be overflowing, not a dollar 
can be drawn from it until an 'appro- 
priation' law authorizes it to be done. Ap- 
propriation laws are passed annually before 
Congress adjourns, and they constitute the 
authority to use or apply the public money 
to public purposes. And was it ever heard 
of before that these laws constitute a nation- 
al or public debt? At the end of every year 
large amounts of appropriations remain in 
the Treasury unexpended and pass over to 
be expended for the next year. It often 
happens too that large amounts of apprpria- 
lions remain unexpended for long periods of 
time, afid in that case they go to the surplus 
fund, and cannot be used until a ne'V apro- 
priation law authorising ihat use is passed. 
As had been the practice and was their du- 
ty, Mr. Van Buren's expiring Congress 
passed the usual appropriation laws, before 
their adjournment on the 3d of March 1841, 
for the use of Gen. Harrison's administra- 
tion. If they had not passed them his ad- 
ministration could not have gone on, and 
now the amount of these appropriations for 
the current year and the outstanding balan- 
ces of appropriations are charged, I repeat, 
for the first time, by any public menof repu- 
utation to be a debt. Instead of calling: 
them appropriation as they have always 
been called, they call them liabilities, and 
insist that a liability is a debt. By a cau^ 
tiously prepared resolution passed by Con- 
gress in 1842, a call is made on the officers 
of the Treasury to report "the amount for 
which the Treasury was liable on the 4th 
March, 1841 — on account of appropriations 
ol all kinds, undrawn on that day «S2,c." — 
The Report from the Treasury technichally 
responds to the call, and states : 
"Specific appropriations of 
all kinds — undrawn on 
the 4th of March, 1841, $27,134,721 30 
Indefinite appropriation? 
drawn between the 4th of 
March and 31st of De- 
cember, 1841, 1,771,269 46 
And by adding these items to the Treasury 



notes then outstanding, they get the aggre-> 
gate sum of $34,665,269 39; which they 
attempt to parade as a public debt. Sup- 
pose the same principle be applied at the 
close of Mr. Adam's administration on the 
4th of March, 1829— the day on which Gen. 
Janckson entered on the duties of President. 
On that day the amount of undrawn appro- 
priations for the service of 1829, with the 
unexpended balance of appropriations of for« 
mer years, was $26,379,941. Was this 
sum ever dreamed of as a debt inherited by 
Gen. Jackson from Mr. Adams' administra- 
tion? Apply the same principle to the close 
of Gen. Jackson's on the 4th of March, 
1837 — the day on which Mr. Van Buren 
entered on the duties of President. On that 
day the amount of undrawn appropriations 
for the service of 1837 — with the unexpen- 
ded balance of appropriations of former 
years— was $57,258,625. Was this a debt 
inherited by Mr. Van Buren from Gen. 
Jackson's administration? Weallknow that 
no national debt existed at that time. Ap- 
ply the same principle to the 4th of March 
of the present year (1843) of the whig ad- 
ministration. If the undrawn appropriations 
on the 4th of March, 1841, were liabilities 
and therefore a debt, the undrawn appropri- 
ations on the 4th of March, 1843, were lia- 
bilities also and therefore a debt. On that 
day the amount of undrown appropriations 
— for the year 1843 — and the first half of 
1844— were $29,214,185 
71. Deduct appropria- 
tions for Post Office, 4,545,000 OO 



Unexpended balance of ap- 
propriations of former 
years — as they were as- 
certained to be on the 1st 
January, 1843, 



$24,669,185 71 



10,412,003 00 



Making of undrawn appro- 
priations $35,081,188 71 

Add to this "the public debt 
on the 13th February, 
1843" as shown by the 
official statement of the 
Register of the Treasury, 27,389,221 65 



Making 



So that upon the principle 
assumed by some of the 
whig party as applied to 
the 4th of March 184J, 
there were on the 4th of 



$62,470,410 ,3& 



March iS'in, liabilities 
or debts amouJiting to the 
sum of $02,470,419 36 

Deduct from this the amount 
of undrawn appropria« 
tionson the 4th of March 
1841, which they insist 
were liabilities on that 
day & therefore a debt, $34,665,269 39 



Showing upon this princi- 
ple an increase of liabili- 
ties or debt of this sum $27,S0r»,140 97 

If the Whig leading men be right in as- 
suming that undrawn appropriations consti- 
tute a liability on the Treasury and there* 
fore a debt — it follows from the facts here 
stated that they found these liabilities on the 

4th March, 1841, to be $34,665,269 39 

And left the same kind of 
liabilities or debt on the 
4th of March 1843, at $62,470,410 36 



Showing an increase of pub- 
lic debt upon this princi^ 
pie in two years, of $27,805,140 97 

If this principle be correct, every admin«- 
istration must of necessity inherit a public 
debt from its immediate predecessors; al- 
though the nation as was the case when Gen. 
Jackson retired, may be free from public 
debt and owe nothing. 

If however, the true principle prevailts, 
and the records of the Treasury be true, (he 
Whig party now in power, have increased 
the Public Debt by borrowing money and 
issuing Treasury notes on interest by the 
sum of $19,908,529 47, as I have already 
shown. On the other hand, if the Whig 
principle prevails they have enlarged the 
debt by $27,805,140 97. Let them there- 
fore select which of the two principles they 
may, they have incontroveriibly increased 
the public debt. 

I have no hesitation in expressing my con- 
viction, that if the party in power had not 
disturbed the land fund by their distribution, 
and had brought the usual quantity of pub- 
lic lands into market, instead of withholding 
them from market, for the purpose ofre> 
serving the proceeds for distribution; and if 
they had not disturbed the Compromise 
Tariff act of 1833— that income into the 
Treasury would have been amply sufficient 
to meet all necessary expenditures for 1811 
and '42. Instead of^this they have by their 
policy diminished the revenue, increased I 



the expenditures a. 

debt in time of profound peace with all the 
world, at the rate of ten millions a year. 
That the next annual Report from the 
Treasury Department will show a still 
greater amount of public debt by an increas- 
ed issue of Treasury notes, there is no reas- 
on to doubt 

The Secretary of the Treasury in De«« 
cember 1840 as I have already shown, esti- 
mated the ordinary expenditures for 1841 at 
.•§19,250,000. The actual receipts for the 
first three quarters of that year and the esti- 
mated receipts for the 4th quarter as shown 
by the late Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. 
Forward, in his Report of 20th December, 
1841, were, independent of Treasury notes 
issued and loans made, 17,145,804 dollars 
19 cents; a sum wiihin 2,104,195 dollars 
and 81 cents of that estimated by the Sec- 
retary of the Treasury in the December 
previous, to be necessary for the service of 
1841. That there may be no doubt upon 
this point, I will give the receipts for 1841, 
as stated by Mr. Secretary Forward, in his 
Report of December 20, 1841. They are 
as follows, viz: 

"Receipts into the Treasury du- 
ring the first three quarters of 
the present year (1841) viz: 

From Customs, $1 0,847,557 44 

From Lands, 1,104,063 06 

From Miscellaneous and inci- 
dental sources, 90,691 69 

From bond of Bank of the United 
States, 662,049 47 

From Banks which failed in 

1837, 51,127 30 

The receipts for the 4th quarter 
it is estimated will amount to 
— viz; 

From Customs, 4,000,000 00 

From Lands, 350,000 00 

From Miscellaneous and inci- 
dental sources. 30,000 00 

From bond of Bank of the U. S. 10,315 23 

$17,145,804 19 
The revenue from lands would undoubt- 
edly have been increased between one and 
two mil linns, had the usual quantity been 
ofTered for sale. 

I am well satisfied, if the policy of the late 
administration in regard to reduction of ex- 
penditures, had been pursued by their suc- 
cessors, that the nation would now have 
been freed from the increased national debt 
of near twenty millions of dollars, which by 
a contrary policy they have within the last 
two years imposed upon it. The extraor- 
dinary causes which led to large expendi- 



.il 



... i 837,1838 arid 1S30, had passed 
otl'.and did not exist in 1S41 and 1842. 



THE TARIFF, 

Upon the subject of the tarifT, I have but 
little to add to what I have heretofore often 
declared 1o the public. All who have ob- 
served my course know that I have at all 
times been opposed to ihe "protective poli- 
cy." I am for laying such moderate duties 
on imports as will raise revenue enough 
when added to the income from the sale of 
lands and other incidental sources, to defray 
the expenses of Government economically 
administered. lam in favor of a tariff /or 
revenue, and opposed to a tanfF/br protec- 
tion. I was a member of Congress during 
the period that this subject excited greatest 
interest. I was opposed to the protective 
tariff of 1828 and voted against it. I voted 
for the act of 1832 — because it reduced the 
tariff of 1828 to lower rates. That made 
some reduction though not as much as I de^* 
sired to have made. I voted (or the act of 
March 2d 1833 (commonly called the com- 
promise act) which reduced the rates of 
the act of 1832 to still lower rates, and final- 
ly brought the rates of the acf of 1832 down 
to a point at which no article was after the 
30lh of June 1842 to be subject to a duty 
higher than 20 per cent. This was the law 
when the whig Congress came into power. 
By the tariff act of the 30th August 1842, 
the compromise act was violated and repeal- 
ed. I am opposed to the act of 1842, not 
regarding it to be a revenue tariff, but in ma- 
ny of its provisions highly protective and op- 
pressive in its character. I am in favor of 
the restoration of the compromise act of 

rl833. • 

The condition of the country at the lime 
the compromise act of 1833 was passed can 
never be forgotten. Its effect in allaying the 
excitement which threatened the most de- 
structive consequences, was instantaneous. 
Whilst it was pending before Congress, Mr. 
Clay in a speech declared : 

"But if the measure should be carried by the 
common consent of both parties, we shall have 
all security. History will faithfully record the 
transaction — narrate uoder what circumstances 
the bill was passed; that it was a pacifying 
measure; that it was as oil poured from the ve s- 
sel of the Union, to restore peace and harmony 
to the country. When all this was known, 
what Congress— what Legislature would mar the 



f^unrantee auti who ix entitle.u .^ . . .... 

the character uf an American statesman, would 
stand up in his place iti either House of Congress 
and dislurh the treaty oj peace and amity."' 

Such was the language of Mr. Clay upon 
the introduction of the Compromise Bill. It 
passed "by the common consent of both par- 
ities;" it did "restore peace and harmony to 
the conntry" and on all sides it was held 
"sacred as a treaty of peace and amity" un- 
til the whig party came info power. 

Mr. Clay in a speech made at Buffalo, in 
New York, in July 1S39, declared: 

"The compromise of the tariff was proposed 
to preserve our manufacturers from impending 
ruin, menaced by the administration of Gen. 
Jackson, and would avert from the Union the 
threatened danger of civil war. If the compro- 
mis9 he inviolably maintained, as I think it 
ought to be, I trust that the rate of duty for 
which it provides, in conjunction with the stip- 
ulation for cash duties, home valuations <.^ the 
long list of free articles inserted for the benefit 
of the manufacturing interest, will insure it 
reasonable and adequate protection." 

Again Mr. Clay inhia Hanover speech ia 
Virginia, on the 27th of June, 1840, declar^ 
ed his intention to adhere to the compro- 
mise act in the following terms: 

"The question cannot be, ought not to be 
one of principle, but of measure and degree. 
I adopt that of the compromise act, not because 
that act is irrepealable, but because it met with 
the sanction of a nation. Stability with mode- 
rate and certain protection is far more impor- 
tant than instabilit}!, the necessary consequen- 
ces of high protection. But the protection of 
the compromise act will be adequate in most if 
notastoall interests* The2iJ per cent, which it 
stipulates, cash duties, home valuations and the 
list of free articles inserted in the act, for the 
particular advantage of the manufacturers will 
insure, 1 trust, sufficient protection — Altogeth« 
er they will amount probably to not less than 
30 per cent." 

And after these and many other similar 
promises made by the leading members of 
the whig party in this and other States, the 
late whig Congress have violated and re- 
pealed it. 

In a speech delivered by me at Pulaski, 
on the 29th September 1842, in reference 
to this subject, I used the tollowing lan- 
guage, viz: 

"When the compromise act of 1833 was pass- 
ed, every interest in the country stood pledged 
in the most solemn manner to adhere to and 
abide by it. It was hoped that this agitated 
and disturbing subject was put to rest for a long 
series of years, if not forever." 

Had the late administration continued in 
power, it was certain that we should not now 
be witnessing the revival of this controver- 
sy. In the Presidential canvass of 1840, 
both parties stood pledged to preserve and 



oo 



maintain the rnmpromise act. General Har- 
rison liimseir, in his Zanesville letter declar- 
ed: "I am for supporting the compromise 
act, and never will a^jree to its being alter- 
ed or repealed;"" and in bis letter to Mr. 
Senator Berrien, of Georgia, he declared 
liimself to the same effect, & added: "Good, 
fairh and the peace and harmony of the Un- 
ion, do in my opinion, require that the com- 
promise of the tariff, known as Mr. Clay's 
bill, should be carried out according to its 
spirit and intention." In the discussions 
which took place in this State not only du- 
ring the Presidential contest of 1840 but al- 
so in the canvass of last year, all the orators 
of that party stood solemnly pledged that it 
should never be disturbed. But like all the 
federal pledges made before the election, 
this too had been violated, shamefully viola- 
ted and disregarded. He had himself sus- 
pected as much, and from a long acquain- 
tance with most of the prominent men now 
in power, he was so well satisfied that they 
intended to break up the compromise, that 
he had charged all over the State during the 
last year, and so charged in a published ad- 
dress to the people, that one object of the 
proposition to dislribute the proceeds of the 
public lands among the Slates, was to af- 
ford a pretext for violating it by increasing 
the tariff above the maximum rate of 20 per 
cent, ad valorem, which it prescribed. He 
had charged further that the deficit created 
by the withdrawal of the land money, would 
be supplied by a tax on articles of necessity. 
This was denied and the people were told 
that no man in Tennessee would be taxed 
one cent, that the compromise act would be 
preserved inviolate, and the deficit produced 
by the withdrawal of the land money would 
be made up by a tax on silks and wines and 
other luxuries, such as the rich used, and 
the poor could not afford. Many in 
crowd present, and thousands in the State, 
lie was sure would remember this. And 
now how stands the fact? The compromise 
act had been violatde. All the pledges 
made before the election to preserve it had 
been disregarded. A tariff bill imposing 
enormous duties on many articles of prime 
necessity, far exceeding the rates of the com- 
promise act had been passed. Was this ne- 
cessity for revenue? It was demonstrable 
that it was not, and that its object was not 
revenue, but protection. Mr. Secretary 
Ewing in his report of the 2d of June, 1841 , 
estimated that the rates authorised by the 
compromise act, by which the duly on no 



the*"cl 



article was to exceed iiO per cent., ad valo- 
rem, would yield to the Treasury annually 
$20,800,000, and he said the "revenues 
which will accrue from that or nearly prox- 
imate rate of duty, will be sufficient to de- 
fray the expenses of the Government and 
Jeave a surplus," &. "leave also the proceeds 
of the public lands to be disposed of as Con- 
gress shall think fit." — I'he average income 
from the lands for a series of years, had been 
about $3,000,000 annually. This sum add- 
ed to the $20,000,000 estimated to accrue 
from imposts under the compromise would 
make an aggregate annual revenue of $23,-« 
000,000 without disturbing the compromise 
act, a sum exceeding near a million and a 
half of dollars, ihat expended in the last 
year (1840) of Mr. Van Buren's Adminis- 
tration. It was clear therefore upon the 
showing of their own Secretaries of the 
Traesury at the commencement of their pow- 
er that it was not necessary, even without 
the land money & much less vvith it, to raise 
duties above the rales authorised by the com- 
promise act for the purpose of revenue . 

In the late tariff act which they had pasecd, 
how had they kept their pledge thai luxuries 
and not necessaries were to be taxed? That 
too like all their pledges had been violated. — 
The late tariff act imposed not only increased 
but enormous duties upon many articles of 
the first necessity, and upon some of them, da- 
ties so high as to greatly diminish and in 
some cases prohibit their importation into the 
country altogether, thus cutting off instead of 
increasing revenue from them. A slight in- 
spection of the act itself would prove the fact 
to be 60. He would enumerate a few articles 
with the tax imposed upon them by a new 
law, as specimens from which its general char- 
acter could be seen. And whilst he did this, 
let it be borne in mind, that whilst many arti- 
es under the compromise act were taxed 
lower than 20 per cent on their valire, none 
were allowed to be taxed higher than that rate. 
The late tariff" act imposed a tax of 8 cents 
per bushel of 56 poundson salt; 2i cents per. 
pound on brown sugar; 4 cents per square yard 
on cotton bagging; 5 cents peryard on gunny- 
cloth, an article frequently used as a substi- 
tute for cotton bagging; on anvils, blacksmith's 
hammers and sledges, 2i cents per pound; 
on mill saws, crosa-cut saws, and pit saws, 
one dollar each; on axes, adzes, hatchets, plane 
irons, socket chisels and vices, drawing knives, 
sickles or reaping hooks, scythes, spades or 
shovels, and iron chains, 30 per cent on the 
value; on bar iron not made by rolling $IJ 



23 



i ;B.Ti(J if made by rolling 2o dollars per ton; on 
I pig iron $9 per ton; on flannels 14 cents per 
square yard; on manufactures of wool 40 per 
cent on the value; on manufactures of cotton 
30 per cent on the value. He might enume- 
rate many other articles, even down to pins, 
and sewing, knitting and darning needles, but 
those mentioned would sufficiently illustrate 
the general protective, and in regaid to some 
articles prohibitory character of the tax im- 
posed on many articles, which could be but 
imperfectly seen by the bare enumeration he 
had made. 

The act contained in regard to some arti- 
cles of general consumption, what manufactu- 
rers called the minimum principle, by which 
the article taxed was assumed to be worth 
more than it really cost, and the tax imposed 
on SHch assumed value. He would take the 
article of cotton goods to illustrate the practi- 
cal operation of this principle. The late tar- 
iff act as we had seen, imposed a duty of 30 
per cent on the value of cotton goods, but the 
act also provided that all cotton goods not 
dyed, colored, painted or stained, not exceeding 
in value 20 cents per square yard, shall be 
valued at 20 cents and taxed accordingly; 
and all cotton goods which were either dyed, 
colored, printed or stained, among which were 
calicoes in such general use, not exceeding in 
value 30 cents, should be estimated to have 
cost 30 cents per square yard and taxed ac- 
cordingly. Take the article of prints, inclu- 
ding calicoes, and what was the tax levied on 
them? Any importing merchant would tell 
■us that the coarser descriptions of the article 
could be bought In the foreign market for 
from 6 to 8 cents per square yard and perhaps 
lower. Suppose a merchant to import a bolt 
of such goods. When he arrived in this coun- 
try with it he produced his invoice to the 
custom house officer, showed him that the arti- 
cle cost him in the foreign market, 5 cents per 
square yard. He would be answered by the 
officer and told; we are required by the tariff 
law to consider that it cost you 30 cents in- 
stead of 5 cents, and must levy a duty of 30 
per cent on 30 cents value instead of on 5 cts 
value; that is, six times as much tax would be 
levied on 5 cents, the real cost, making 180 
per cent duty instead of 30 per cent. 

The consequence would be that all cotton 
goods of the coarser description costing under 30 
cents per square yard, must either be prohibit- 
ed entirely or brought in at a greatly increas- 
ed price to the consumer. And this was one 
of the contrivances resorted to, to cheat the 
people and to enable the home manufacturer to 



raise the prices and charge the coneurncTB 
more for eimilar articles which he made. This 
was called protection; protection to the north- 
ern manufacturer, at the expense of all who 
bought and consumed cotton goods. 

A tax Was levied by the law of 8 cents per 
bushel of 56 pounds on imported salt. This 
was done to protect the interests of a few 
wealthy salt-makers in the United States, by 
enabling them to sell the salt which they made 
at higher prices, and all who used salt 
were compelled to pay the tax. Foreign salt 
could be brought in and sold at our ports at 
from lO to 12i cents on the bushel, if it were 
free of duty. 

Brown sugar was taxed 2* cents per pound, 
and for whose protection was this) Whilst 
all the peop'e of the United States were con« 
sumers of sugar it was well known, that but 
a small part of one State and one Territory in 
the United States produced Sugar. ^ It was 
equally well known that the Sugar planters 
were generally very wealthy men, were the 
owners of large estates in lands and slaves, 
and it was for their protection, and by enabling 
them to sell their Sugar at higher prices that 
this tax was laid. Foreign brown sugar could 
be brought into our ports and after paying 
freight and charges, could be sold without the 
duty, at 4 cents per pound or less; upon its 
arrival it was taxed 2 i cents, raising the price 
to the purchaser or consumer to 64 cents per 
pound, or at the rate of 62 J per cent on its 
value. The sugar planter would of course 
raise the price of his article to that of the for- 
eign, after the tax was laid on it. It might 
seem strange that the Woollen, Cotton and 
other manufactures, who were the consumers 
of such articles as Salt and sugar, should agree 
to tax them, but it would not be so when it was 
remembered, that there must always be a com- 
bination of interest when a high protective 
tariff law was passed. The Sugar and Salt 
men for example would agree in turn to vote a 
tax on Woollens and Cottons; and it was by 
combination such as these, that majorities were 
ever coTimanded in Congress, to pass these 
unequal and oppressive laws. 

For the purpose of making plain the op- 
pressive operation of the present high tariff, I 
will trace its effects in taking money out of 
the pockets of the consumers of brown sugar, 
and putting it into the pockets of the manu- 
facturers of this article. From the commer- 
cial tables made out at the treasury depart- 
ment, it is ascertained that in 1 840, the quan- 
tity of brown sugar imported into the United 
States was 107,953,033 lbs. By the present 



24 



tariff', every pound eo imported must pay into 
the treasury 2i cents, making $'2,698,320, 
the nett amount of revenue to be collected 
from this article, taking the importation of '40 
as the standard. This amount must be paid 
in ca^h by the importer before he can bring 
his sugar into our market. What then has 
the consumer to pavl First— he must pay 
the 2i cents on every pound; second he must 
pay the profit, which the importer charges on 
the advancement of cash, which I presume 
is never less than 10 per cent; and third, he 
must pay the retailer's profit which is at 
least 20 per cent. So that this account will 
stand thus: 
The consumers will pay the duty 

of 2i cents per lb $2,698,320 

Importers profit of 10 per cent. 269,832 
Retailers profit of 20 per cent. 539,764 



S3.507,916 
The amount therefore paid by the conwimers 
of brown sugar brought into the country, above 
the amount which they would pay if there was 
no tariff is over three millions and a half of 
dollars, and of this amount $2,698,320 goes 
into the treasury. But the brown sugar im- 
ported and that manufactured in this country 
eell at the same price. Whatever amount is 
imposed as a tax on the imported article is 
added by our manufacturers to the price of the 
same article manufactured in the U. States. 
By reference to the census tables it is found 
that there was manufactured in the United 
States in 1840, about 125,000,000 lbs. of 
brown sugar. The tariff enables the manufac- 
turers to add 2i cents on every pound, and 10 
per cent on this to correspond with the impor- 
ter's profit, and 20 per cent to correspond 
with the retailer's profit — the account will 
Btand thus: 
The consumer will pay 2i cents 

per lb. $3,126,000 

For importer's and retailer's 

profits 837,500 



$4,062,500 
Amount to raise revenue on im- 
ported sugar 3,506,916 



Whole amount paid by consum- 
ers $7,570,416 
The whole amount paid by consumers of 
brown sugar is more than seven and a half 
millious of dollars, above the amount they 
would pay if there was no tariff. And of this 
amount only $2,698,320 goes into the treas. 

#t ji iw > >i. )' . « '%4'-^'^^in^''*r, thf nockelB of thc 



sugar makers, importers and retailers. Esti- 
mating brown sugar to be worth 4 cents per 
lb. at the ports where imported, the tariff of 
24 cents per lb* is about 62 per cent, or three 
times as great as it would have been under 
the compromise act. It is easy then to see 
the extent of protection extended to the sugar 
makers, and the amount of oppression imposed 
upon the farmers and mechanics who consume 
this article. 

I have given this calcula' ion merely to il- 
lustrate the effect of the present tariff. By a 
simple process of calculation any one can 
estimate the effects produced by the tax upon 
the other necessaries of life, such as woollen 
goods, cotton goods, bar iron and salt-— they 
are equally unjust and oppressive. To enable 
every min to make the calculation on these 
four leading articles of necessity, I give the 
following facts from the commercial and cen- 
sus tables. 

In 1840 there was imported into the Uni- 
ted States — woollen goods, worth $6:226,- 
630. Cotton goods, worth $6,504,484. Bar 
iron, (61,132 tons) ^3,397,480. Salt (8,- 
183,426 bushels) $1,016,426. 

In the year 1840 there was manufactured 
in the United States- -woollen goods 20,696,- 
999 dols. Cotton goods 46,350,463 dols. 
Bar iron, (197,233 tons) 6,916,990 dols. — 
Salt (6,t79,424 bushels) 772,378 dollars. 

In order to show that the tariff passed by 
the late Congress is not a revenue measure, in a 
late speech delivered at Jackson, and publish- 
ed, I used the following language: 

"No higher than 20 per cent was imposed 
on any article, after the 30th of June '42, 
until the 30th of August, '42, on which lat- 
ter day the present tariff law was passed by 
the whig Congress. The whig Congress laid 
violent hands on the Compromise of '33, and 
broke it up. They raised the tariff as high 
and upop many articles higher than the rates 
which existed when the compromise act was 
passed. That it was so high as to be prohib- 
itory on some, and highly protective upon 
many articles of necessary and common use, 
was proved by the fact, that under its opera- 
tion, the revenue to the Treasury from im- 
ports had been greatly diminished. The Se- 
cretary of the Treasury in his annual report 
to Congress in December last, states that 
"the period withm which the tariff had been 
in operation, has been much loo short to furn- 
ish any decisive evidence as to its permanent 
influence on importations. The foreign trade 
of the country has continued to decline, and 
importations hcUiC Hen comparatively small 



r.Bca the paesoge of the act. Iloyr far this 
■tat* of things may have been induenced by 
the existing system of duties, it is impossible 
10 determine." An official Report from lixe 
Secretary of the Treasury to Congress, of the 
16th February 1843, sets furth the accruing 
iuties on imports during the several quarters of 
the year '42— from which it appears that the 
accruing duties on imports, during the Istquar- 
ter of that year, that is to say, for the months of 
January, February and JUarch, and whilst 
the compromise act was in opdration and had 
reached its lowest point of valuation save one, 
was 6,060,401 89: and that the accruing du- 
ties on imports, during the last quarter of tiiat 
year, that is to say, for the months of October , 
JVbveniber and December, under the operation 
of the existing taritFlaw, was $2,579,339 28: 
It appeared therefore, that though the duties 
were raised to a very high rate under the ex- 
isting tariff act of the whig Congress — such 
had been the falling off in the amount of im- 
ports, during the last quarter of 1842, that 
the revenue derived from the customs , was 
jiearhilf a million less than half what they 
were during the first quarter of '42, when the 
lowest duties of the compromise act of -3"3 
were in force. It was clear therefore that the 
late tariff act was not a revenue measure. It 
had raised the rates of duties eo high as to shut 
out imports and consequently to cut off and 
iiminieh revenue." 



BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 

My opinions in reference to a National Bank 
have been so fully and frequently expressed 
JQ public letters and speeches that no man 
can have iha least difficuify in ascerlaining 
them. I shall therefore content myself with 
doing little more than quoting a part of what 
I said at Pulaski on iha 29th of September, 
1842, on the Bank question. In that speech 
which was extensively published in the 
newspapers, I said: 

"One of the greatest difficulties which the 
opponents of a bank had had to encounter in 
this State, had been in meeting the vague 
generalities in which the bank advocates 
had dealt. They all, with perhaps rare ex- 
ceptions, professed to condemn and oppose 
the late Bank of the United Slates, or any 
other Bank organized on similar principles. 
They would say, we are opposed to the old 
Bank, but we arc in favor of a Bank with 
suitable restrictions and niodsficalions. — 
What these modificalions and resiictions 
were ^hey would not specify. They talked ! 



of thorn in geoeral and vague terra», but 
their plan of a banit i.Sey did not and would 
not give. Some, to be sure, had in their 
■ninds an uncertain and undefined notion of 
tho plan of a bank with which they would 
be pleased — such as that there should be do 
private stockholders, and that it shuuld he 
owned by the General Government and tha 
States. Many honest men had been mad© 
to think that a prooer sort of bank misbt be 
framed that might be useful. 

He said he regarded it as fortunate in tiis 
fjture discussions of the subject that the par- 
ty advocating a Bank, in liiis State at least, 
iij^d at length been driven from their vague 
generalities. They had brouglu iii and pass- 
ed a Bank charier at the ex'.ra session of 
Congress. Rlr. Clay was its author. Pres- 
ident Tyler vetoed it, and because he had 
done so, they had denounced him as a trai- 
tor, and had buit and hung him inef!ijy. 
If President Tyler had signed that bi!! tiiej 
said the whole scheme of Federal measures 
would have bsen complete. That biU, then, 
we must prcsuii^") contained the plan of a 
Bank, and to get it they are nov,- prepared 
to elect Henry Clay President of (he United 
States. 

Now what was that bill, and what was 
the kind of Bank which they promised by 
it to the country, if they continued anoiher 
Presidential term in power ? A slight in- 
spection of its provisions would show that 
it was an old fashoned incorporated stoc'c 
bank, to be owned in part and in fact controll- 
ed bv private stockholders, retaiiiing all the 
bad features of the late bank, and erabrac- 
inT others that made it eveti mare o!)i?,cti(.'n- 
able than that Buik, bad as that was. lis 
capital stock was to be thirty millions of 
dollars, with power reserved to increase it 
to 50 millions afier the year 1850. Ono 
third of the capital slock, or fen millions of 
dollars, was to be subscribed for by theUni- 
ted States, and two-ihirds, or twenty millions 
of dollars, was to be subscribed fi)r by in-« 
dividuais, companies, corporations or States. 
The ten millions of dollars to be sub'scriiied 
by the United States, vras to be raised f)y 
borrowing; the money. A Public debt of 
Ten Millions of Dollars was by the char- 
ter authorized to be created, and for that pur- 
pose a public stock of the United States was 
to be issued, bearing interest at the rate of 
five per centum per annum which \v;t9 noc 
to be paid until alter the expiration of fifteen 
years. This loan must most probably, we 
might safely say certainly, have been made 



2G 



from foreigners — thus presenting a nation 
of .seventeen millions ofMreemen in the hu- 
miliating, if not degrading attitude of bor- 
rowin": money on interest fiorn foreigners 
to make a bank upon. The interest on the 
loan which was to be paid half yearly, was 
five hundred thousand dollars a year, and 
would have amounlcd for the fifieen years 
(sooner than the e.xpiration of which it could 
not be redeemed) to seven millions five hun- 
tlred thousand dollars. The Bank was to 
be located at Washington city and was to be 
governed by nine directors, three of whom 
were to be appointed by the United States 
nnd six by the private stockholders. All 
know that six w^ould control three — so that 
the bank itself would in fact have been un- 
der the absolute control of the private stock- 
holders. Indeed this seemed to have been 
designed by the charter itself, for it was pro- 
vided that "not less than fivedirectors shall 
constitute a board for the transaction of bugi> 
ness, of whom the President shall always be 
one, arid ai least three of the five shall be of 
the directors elected by the stockholders." — 
This provision made it absolutely impossi- 
ble even in a thin boa.'-d, for the three Gov- 
ernment directors, in any possible case, to 
constitute a majority. The principal board 
were empowered to appoint (he directors or 
managers of the branches. — The public mo- 
ney was directed to be deposited with the 
bank, and as a considerable amount of it 
would necessarily be always on hand, it 
would be used and traded upon as banking 
capital. The taxes paid 03^ the people for 
the support of Government v/ou!d cons'itute 
a part of the Banking capital, to be loatseti 
nut, and upon which the private stockhol- 
ders would make profit. This was the out- 
line ofMr. Clay's Bank Bill which Presi- 
dent Tyler vetoed. He had searched in 
vain lhrouQ;h its provisions for those restric- 
lums and limitations which were so often 
and so vaguely spoken of, and which v/ere 
t'l prevent it from running info all the (•(-■}•- 
ruptiunsit aI>usesot'lhe la;e Bankof thelJni- 
ted Stales. The United States was made 
by this charter to jjo into partnership with 
the private siockhoidors, to [dace all her re- 
venues in the concern, and was yet placed 
in a minority in the Directory, and was 
there'ore deprived of all power of control 
over (hem. Who would probably have be- 
come the private stockhoMcfs in such a 
bank? In (he west and south, whera there 
was but little surplus capital, and where niD- 
ney bore high rates of intereet. but little if 



any would have been taken. Scarcely a 
share of the stock in the late bank of the Uni- 
ted States was at any time owned in Ten- 
nessee. There could be no doubt but thai 
much the larger por(ion of it would have ei- 
ther been taken at first or bean ultimately 
owned by the Federalists of the northern &, 
eastern sections of the Union, who were the 
larger capitalists of the country. This waa 
the case with the old bank. And though 
stock could not be taken directly by foreign- 
ers, there was no doubt but that much of il 
would have been ultimately held by them 
under cover of secret trusts in the name of 
others. He could not doubt that if it had 
been established it would have soon become 
an immense political engine of deadly hos- 
lili'y to the purity of eletions and to the li« 
berties of the people, and would have 
b^en wielded by a corupt faction, aa 
was the late Bank of the United States, and 
for the worst of purposes. The thanks of 
the country, he had no hesitation in saying, 
were due to President Tvlerfor having ar- 
rested it as he did by his veto. 

It will be seen from the foregoing outline 
of the charter of the Bank passed at the Ex- 
tra Session of 1841, that in all its leading 
features it was similar to the late Bank of 
the United States— Mr. Clay took the late U. 
S. Bank as his model and he succeeded in 
securing its passage, similar in all its essen- 
iial provisions to that ill-fated institution, and 
in some of them worse even than that Bank, 
bad as it was. The plan of a National Bank 
with v/hich the people of Tennessee have 
been deluded by the Whig orators was not 
once thought of by Mr. Clay and his friends. 
Th'dv never will consent to any other than 
a stock Bank in which individuals shall have 
the control. Those who indulge the hope 
that any other kind of Bank will ever be ac- 
ceptable to the Whig leaders are destined to 
continual disappointments. 

On this subject I reiterate what I said in 
my Pulaski speech. Speaking of Mr. Clay's 
Bank I said — "Was this the kind of bank 
which the body of the party in this State 
'.ranted? He thought he could answer with 
certainty that it was not. And yet this was 
Mr. Clay's Bank, and to get it they were 
now (old by leading public men and news- 
papers, thev must vote for him to be Presi- 
dent ofthe United States. He did not deem 
it necessary, and if he did time would not 
allow him, to enter upon the general discus- 
sion of the biink question and the currency 
on that occasion. He would only add that 



27 



neiiher a National Bank nor any oilier Bank 
could prevent commercial revulsions or fur- 
nish a remedy against hard times. When 
we had a national bank we had witnessed 
such times, and when we had none we had 
witnessed them. 

He appaaled to the party in this State 
who advocated the establishment of a Na- 
tional Bank to know if they would be willinj^ 
to take a bank, and especially such a bank 
as Mr. Tyler had vetoed, if they had to take 
with it all the other obnoxious measures of 
the Federal party. My Clay had declared 
in his speech against the repeal of the Bank- 
rupt law, that all the measures of the Extra 
Session constituted one entire system, and 
that no part of it must be invaded or des- 
troyed. Were the Bank party in this State 
ready to support this entire system? Were 
they willing, for the sake of getting such a 
bank as that which had been proposed, to 
support the Bankrupt law, the distribution, 
the public debt, the protective tariff, and in- 
creased appropriations and expenditures? 
Many of them he knew were opposed to 
some, and others to all these measures. lie 
had heard many of them declare that they 
never would vote for any man for any public 
office who had voted for or was in favor of 
the bankrupt law; and yet if they voted for 
Mr. Clay in the delusive hope of get'ing a 
Bank, they would vote for such a man and 
would be virtually voting to keep the bank~ 
rupl law in force. And so if they voted for 
him they would be virtually voting for the 
protective tariff law and all the other meas- 
ures which he had enumerated and which 
they disapproved. 

It was a delusive hope that a National 
Bank could, if established, afford relief to the 
indebted classes — but if it could, how lonn; 
must those who were now indebted wait for 
il? It was certain that no bank chfsrter 
could be passed during Mr. Tyler's time. 
His term would not expire before the 4fh of 
March, 1845, a period of near two and a half 
years. And even should his successor be 
favorable to a bank, which was most im- 
probable: — sli!!, before a bank bill could be 
passed, there must be majorities in favor of 
it in both Houses of Congress, which was 
equally improbable. Should the Pre'^ident 
and both Houses of Congress be found to be 
favorable to the establishment of a B-'ink, 
Congress would not convene in regular ses- 
sion before December 1815, and no action 
could i)robably be had upon the suliject ear- 
Uer than the spring of tlie following year. 



It would require a year or mors from that 
time to put it in operation; so that upon tho 
most favorable view which they could taka 
of it, it would be sometime in the year 1847 
before it could go into operation . He asked 
all those who were now indebted and look- 
ed to a bank to relieve them, if they could 
wait five years. Should it do all that tliey 
vainly hoped it would, would it not coma to» 
late for them? In the meantime the bank- 
rupt law, the protective tariff, and other ru- 
inous and oppressive measures of the fed- 
eral rulers would be in full force and op- 
eration." 

His deliberate opinion v^as that if Mr. 
Clay's bank bill of the extra session had 
passed, tliat the pressure and tightness of the 
money market, would have been greater 
than they now v/ere. They were quite as 
sreat when he had such a bank in 1819 and 
'20, the pries of property was as low, and 
our local State currency was ruinously be- 
low par. Nov/ what circulation we had was 
of par f>mds. Our banks now paid specio 
and he trusted nothing wouldoccur to debase 
their circulation or to induce the banks thenr- 
selves to depart from the specie paying pol- 
icy which they were now pursuing. At the 
period referred to, and when we had a Na~ 
tional Bank, nothing was more common in 
many of the States— and States too, in which 
branches were located— than the passage of 
relief laws. This proved that the late bank 
did not and cou!d not alleviate or prevent 
the pressure and embarrassment which then 
existed. Nor could a new bank, if now es- 
tablished do what the old bank could not. 
Bat if the bank advocates think it could, 
still it was now certain that they could not 
get it into operation in less than five years, 
and before that lime the crisis will have coma 
with a lariie majority of the present debtors. 

Wide differences of opinion have been 
exprns.>ed by leading men of the Whig party, 
at different period.'', in regard to the InHuencft 
which a Bank uf the United States could 
have in preventing commercial revulsitnn, 
or pecuniary pressure — and in producing 
prosperity in the country, i^mong these! 
notice the conflicting opinions of my present 
competitor (Gcvernor Jones) as expressed in 
(lis messaae to the Legislature in October, 
1842 — and of Mr. Clay, as expressed in his 
f^oeech in Congress, in favor of the Tariff m 
IS24. 

Governor Jones in his message of October, 
1842, declares that during the existence of 
the Bank of the United Statas, as far as our 



28 



monetary eSairs wers concBrned, all was 
ealm and quiet The prices of property and 
the pr«ducls of labor were firm and steady — 
Jabor received its just reward, and the march 
of the country to prosperity was firm and de- 
cided/' 

Mr. Clay in his speech on the Tariff Bill 
in Congress, in 1821 — more than six years 
after the late Bank of the United States had 
been in operation — entertained contrary o- 
pinions from these and bore a diiTsrent testi- 
mony. Mr Clay in that speech said: "In cast- 
ing our eyes around us, the most prominent 
circumstance which fills our attention and 
challenges our deepest xes,vei,is the general 
distress which pervades the whole country. 
It is indicated by the diminished exports of 
native produce — by the depressed and le- 
duced state of our foreign navigation- -by 
our diminished commerce— &i/ svccesshe ua- 
threshed crops of grain, perishing hi our 
barns and yards for want of a Market — by 
the alarming diminution of our circulating 
medium — by the numerous banlcuplcies, 
not limited to the trading cjasse?, but exten- 
ded to ail classes of society — by an univer- 
sal complaint of want of employment, and 
a consequent reduction of the wages of labor 
— by the ravenous pursuit after public sta- 
tions, not for the sake of honors and perfor- 
mance of their duties, but as a means of pri- 
vate subsistence — by the reluctant resort to 
the perilous use of paper muney — by the in- 
tervention ©f legislation in the delicate rela- 
tion between debtors and creditor? — wnd a- 
bove all, bv the low and depressed state of 
value of almost every description of the 
•whole mass of property of the nation, ichich 
has on an average sunk not less than fifty 
per cent, tdthin a few years " 

Governor Jones and Mr. CIf»v cannot both 
be ristht. At. the time Mr. Ciay made his 
speech in 1824, the bank v.^as in fuil opera- 
tion, and yet it had not prevented the state 
of things which he describes. 

Jud^e White in his speeches against the 
Bank in the Senate of the United States in 
1S3.J and '34, confir-n i the statement of Mr. 
Cl.iy HI ''2i,30 far as the pecuniary S'jfieririg 
and dislress of the cosmtry were concerned. 
Hs describes ih? suiferings of the people 
during thf> existence of that Biuk, in strong 
and forcible terms. fle;|ives it as his opin- 
ion, that "this Bank then, is the main cause 
oi* this sufTeritijj and this distress, and to re- 
lieve them, we are asked Id extend its po-.v- 
tr-! ^\\ yeard lon:ier." * •* * 
'4 have no ceafijeace in such a retisdy— -it 



will probably be worse than the present dia- 
ease," Such was the testimony , and such 
the opinions of Judge White. The public, 
and especially the aged men, will remember 
hew the facts were. 

The reasons mainly urged for the estab- 
lishment of a National Bank, are that it will 
regulate exchanges, that it will powerfully 
contribute to the resumption of specie pay- 
ments by the State Banks, and that it will 
operate as a relief measure of making mon- 
ey plenty. 

The two first named reasons have ceased 
to have any force in them. The natural 
operations of trade have regulated theex- 
chan'zes, so that they are now in as good a 
condition as it is possible for them to be. 
This has been effected by the laws of trad» 
v/hich will never fail to correct any irregu- 
larity in exchanges if they are not interfer- 
ed with by unwise legislation. 

When Mr. Clay reported the Bank Bill at 
the extra session, he said in his report — ''It 
(the Bank) will powerfully contribute to the 
resumption of specie payments by the Slate 
Banks whose existing delinquency ia the 
greatest source of all prevailing pecuniary 
and financial embarrassments." The State 
Banks in almost all the States have resumed 
specie payments, and therefore according to 
Mr. Clay "the greatest source of pecuniary 
embariassment" is removed. This has been 
effected too J^vithout the aid of a National 
Bank, so that we now have two important 
questions of currency settled. A Bank of 
the United Stales is not necessary to regu- 
late exchanges. A Bank is not necessary 
to enable suspended S^ate Banks to resume 
specie payments. 

B It it is still said that a National Bank 
ouirht to be created to relieve the distresses 
of the people, it becomes those who are in- 
didging the hope that a National Bank can 
relieve them from pressure to calculate the 
chances on which their hopes are based, lu 
no event can a Bank be chartered before 
1S4.5. Will the relief then be in time? But 
hov/ CO lid a Bmk give relief? It is said 
it would increase the circulation — but the 
queg'ion is, how much will the circulating 
madium bo increased by a National Bank 
"'ith a capital of thirty millions of dollars? 
I presume that a reference to the amount of 
the circulation of the late United States i 
Bink with a capital of thirty-five millions 
will be the surest guide in deciding this 
question. The retui 
Bank of the United St 



irns made by the late j 
States, show that duTin|; | 



on 



the first five yeftrp of its existence, its aver- 
ai;e annual circulation was a Utile less than 
five millions of dollars! That durino: the 
period of the next five years from IS22 and 
^3 inclusive, its average circulation was 
about six millions of dollars — that during 
the next five yenr.-^, from 1S27 to "'31 inclu- 
$ive, the circulaiion averaged about eleven 
millions and a half — that in 'o2 when it was 
buying up public favor to get a re-charter, 
its circulation was aLout twenty-one millions 
^and that in 1835, the year v.iien lis char- 
ter expired, it was about twenty-three rail- 
lion!". - If we pupnosethat the propose.! new 
Bank would issue as much as the late Bank, 
which is hardly possible, then the increase 
©f circulation durinir tbo first five years 
would be about five millions — durin<^ the 
next five years about six millions. Plow 
much relief would this give? What effect 
would it have on the price of property, and 
the wages of labor? We have now in cir- 
culation, probably, from seventy to one 
hundred millions of bank paper, and for- 
ty millions in specie; tho balance of the 
specie in the country being in the Banks, 
making about one hundred and ten, to one 
hundred and torty n^il'ions of circulation. 

These estimates of the amount of existing 
circulation, it is believed approximates cor- 
rectness. Yet by the proposed new bank, 
the amount of increas*;; at the end of five 
years, will only be five millions or one 
twenty-second to one tweiity-eigath added 
to the amount now in circulation. How ut- 
terly absurd to expect relief from a Natisnai 
Bank! If one were m full operation it could 
only add this small amount to the general 
circulation — so small that it would be scarce- 
ly felt. But it must be borne in mind that in 
establishing a new National Bank, there will 
be withdrawn from circulation the soecie 

> 

on which it is based. This will diminish tho 
circulation for the time and unavoidably in- 
crease the pressure, at all events at the com- 
mencement cf its operatiorjs. 

Tho increased circulation which such a 
Bank would afford for the first five yea.-s, 
weuld be about thirty cents per head to the 
seventeen millions of people of the United 
States. If the circulation ofthe new bank 
were run up to twenty-three millions, the 
greatest amuunt ever circulated at any one 
time by the late Bank of the United States, 
the proportion to each one of the people oi 
the United States, would be about one dol- 
lar and thirty-five cents Ii cannot be possi- 
ble that such aa increase could bring relief 



to lite debtor classes or any other portion of 
(lie people. Ill deference to ihe wishes of 
my competitor, I have thus reiterated my 
opinions and views on the subject uf a Nu- 
ti'iual Bank; nottkat I believe there is the 
slightest prospect of establishing one, even 
though every man in Tenssee were in its 
I'avor, The elections which have taken 
place to the next Congress in eleven ofthe 
Sta'tes, as well as other evidences of public- 
opinion, abundantly show that the "idea" of 
establishing such an institution is indeed 
"obsolete.'" Many of the former advocates 
of such an institution in other parts of Iha 
Union have given it up and abandoned it. 
JAMES K. POLK. 
Columbia, May 17, 1343. 



We find the subjoined sensible article in 
the Ohio Statesman. There is not a parti- 
cle of humbug about it; it is made up entirely 
oi facts and figures — which cannot lie — 
and as such we recommend it to the calm 
and deliberate attention of the reader. — Ed. 
Appeal. 

OUR TRADE WITH GREAT SRITAilS'. 

Among the many false theories which are 
propagated by the friends of a high protect- 
ive tariff, there is, probably, none that has 
been of more service to them than that which 
represents a high tarifl'as necessary to ena- 
ble us to trade with Great Britain upon e- 
qiial terms. Those who have imbibed this 
theory are continu.AJly asking, "why should 
we buy of Great Britain, when Great Brit- 
ain refuses to buy of us? They suppose that 
ih.^ characlsr of our trade with Great Brit- 
ain, during the latter stages ofthe operatioa 
ofthe compromise act, was such as to leave 
a constant balance against us; and they 
consider the tariff act of the late Coon Con- 
gress vv'orthy of especial regard as a means 
of turning the balance in our favor. 

We nov>' propose to show that these whig 
noiions are entirely destitute of any just 
ftjundation, and our argument shall consist 
of actual, stubborn, and incontrovertible 
FACTS. 

Under the provisions of the compromise 
act, the tariff was in the lowest stages ofita 
descent, during the five years from 1837 
to iSii, inclusive; and these are the years 
which would be named by the tariffites, if 
ihcv were caUcd tioon to select Ih3 cericsi 



30 



in which ihey supposed our trade with Great 
Britain had been the most to our disadvan- 
tage. Never were men more egregiously 
misinformed. Accordinj; to the annual ot- 
ficial Btatements of the cnmRiCrce of the 
United States, presented to Congress by the 
Secretary of the Trersuty, our trade wit'j 
Great Britain and her dependencies, during 
that period of a low tariff, was as follows: 

Imports froml Exports to Br. 
B. DominionslDominions. 



Years. 



1837 

1838 
1839 

ie40 

1841 



$52,289,557 
49,051,181 
71,600,351 
39,130,921 
51,099,638 



f6I,li7,7yi 
58,843,392 
68,163,082 
70,430,846 
62,376,402 



Tot;»l9, 
Subtract 



$263,171,6431 $320,928,513 
263,171,648 



Excess of exports $57,754,865 

It thus appears that* during the five years 
of a low tariff, Great Britain actually took 
more of our goods and produce than we did 
ofhers, tothe enormous extent of FIFTY- 
SEVEN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ! Of 
this excess, forty-two millions were taken 
in the years 1840 and 1841, when the tar- 
iff was the lowest. Such facts as these are 
perfectly irresistable. No honest man, who 
is made acquainted with then), will dare pre 
tend that a high tariff is wanted in order to 
regulate our trade with Great Britain. 

The truth is, that (}reat Britain and her 
colonies have been accustomed to take more 
than half of the whole amount of our foreign 
exports. During the years above referred 
to, the total amount of our exports to all the 
world, was six hundred millions of dollars, 
and, as is shown above, three hundred and 
twenty millions of it was to the British Do- 
minions. 

We will now see what was the" character 
of our trade vvith Great Britain under ahisjh 
tariff. The five years from 1828 to 1832, 
inclusive, are known to have been a period 
in which the tariff was the highest ever im- 
posed on the country. During those five 
years, it is shown by the ofiicial statements 
of the Secretary of the Treasury, that our 
trade with Great Britain and her dgpendea- 
cics, was as follows: 



Years. 



Imports from 
B. Dominions 



Exports to Bri- 
tisii Dominions 



1828 
1829 
1830 
1831 
1832 



$35,591,4841 
27,582,082 
26,804,9^4 
47,956,717 
42.406,924| 



S27,020,2o9 
28,071,084 
31,647,881 
40,001,379 
39,268,555 



"Totals 



^180,332,1911 gi 165,009, 109 



Here is an excess of imparts oyer exportt 
amounting to fouteen millions of dollars. — 
The fact that there was this balance against 
U8, under our highest tariff, is conclusive 
testimony against the whig theory. It 
proves that a high tariff has not that effect 
upon the balance of trade, which the whigs 
ascribe to it. 

It is sometimes urged by the friends of 
the protective system, that our wheat grow- 
ers derive no advantage from the British 
trade, because Great Britain refuses to take 
their wheat and flour. Suppose it to be true 
that she refuses our wheat and flour, have 
we any right to complain? Does she do us 
any wrong by raising her own bread stuffs? 
But it is not true that she takes nothing 
froni our wheat growers. It appears from 
the same official statements which we have 
before quoted, that, during the years 1839, 
'40 and '41, the exports of wheat and flour, 
from the Uuited States to the British Domin- 
ions, were, in value, as follows: 

In 1839 $3,718,080 

1840 8,555,904 

1841 ' 






5,234,041 



Total in three years • • $17,508,625 

What think our farmers of this? Is it not 
an item of some importance to them? Does 
it not show that they have a very considera- 
ble and direct interest in the British trade.'' 

The facts that we have now presented 
are worth more than all the theories that 
whiggery has ever invented; and, with 
every fair minded man, they will go far to.> 
wards disposing of the whole tariff question. 
Showing as they do, that Great Britain has 
been our most profitable customer, when our 
tariff was the lowest, and that her trade was 
actually disadvantageous to us under our 
high tariff, they consequently show that, so 
far as she is concerned, we have great rea- 
son to prefer a low tariff to a high one. — 
Such being the case in regard to Great Brit- 
tain, the high tariflites will find it hard to 
prove that it is not also the case, as to the 
rest of the v/orld. 



From KcndalVs Expositor. 

A HOME MARKET. 
One of the delusive arguments of the 
Tariff' advocates is, that it produces a Home 
Marlcet: The meaning of this is that it in- 
creases the number of consumers of pro- 
duce in corapariscn with the number of 



growers. 



31 



Boes it r.ecessariiy follow, that ihe in- 
crease of consumers is a good thing? If 
it be, why may not Congress pass an act to 
protect from destruction crows and black- 
birds, wolves and squirrels, rats and micel 
They are very considerable Consumers 
without beinjsj producers. If consumption 
be a good thing, here is a way to obtain it 
without covering "the body politic" with 
"sores" in the shapeofmanufactuiing cities. 

But, say the Tariff advocates, '■'the manu' 
facturing operatives give us sotnething in 
return.'''' Yes, at double prices I have ten 
bushels of wheat which I wisli to exchange 
for articles of clothing: What boots it to 
me, whether the rats eat up half of it or it be 
taken from me by a tax on cotton, linen and 
woollen goods? Are not the rats just as 
good consumers as the manufacturers when 
thev give me just as good a return ? 

But if the government ought to legislate 
with a view to incieaee the pioportion of con- 
eumers, there is a more effectual mode: 
Force] the manufacturers to break in pieces 
all their machinery of modern invention 
and resort to the primitive modes of spin- 
ning and weaving. They Vv-ould ihen require 
five hands, probably ten, for every one now 
employed, and thus make a most important 
addition to the number cf consumers. But, 
says the Tariff advocate, <'that won\d great- 
ly increase the price of goods:'''' Very well; 
is not that the very end at which \ou aim by 
by a Protective Tariff? Aye but it v/ould 
increase the cost of manufucturing them.'''' 
Ah, that explains your real motive: You 
want to increase the price of goods without 
increasing the cost of mamifactur'mg them 
and thereby add to your profits. While 
you talk of giving employment to laborers, 
increasing the number of consumers, mak- 
ing a home market for farmers, &c. &;c., 
you are constantly introducing machines of 
iron, brass and wood which neither eat nor 
drink, to perform the work of men and wo- 
men who do, aad sending back your ope- 
ratives to the occupations whence they came; 
or as in England, turning them out to steal 
or starve ! Yet, you call on the farmers and 



oltiers to pay an enorraoos tax to raiaft prices 
and make your machine labor profitable; to 
"protect''' things of iron, brass and wood from 
competition with the "pauper labor" of Eu- 
rope? 

What is the fact? Has the building up 
of Lowell or Nashua increased the prices of 
the farmer's wheat or corn in Ohio, Indiana 
or Illinois.'' Every man knows better. Ha* 
it increased the prices of the farmer's corn 
and rye raised in their vei'y neighborhood? 
Every farmer 50 years old who lives there, 
knows better. Ke knows that their prices, 
thirty or forth years ago, were higher thaa 
they are nov/. Southern and western corn 
and flour have been brought, by means of 
these very manufacturing establishments, 
into competition with those of the New Eng- 
land farmer, at his own door, reducing pr'i' 
ces there without increasing them in the re- 
gions whence the new supplies come. These 
are notorious facts — :he strongest of argu- 
ment?. 

To think of increasing the prices of wes- 
tern produce by building up manufacturer!, 
and thus increasing the number of domestic 
consumers, is as idle as to think of affecting 
the volume of the Mississippi above or be- 
low by throwing the water over the levee 
at New Orleans with a bucket. The pro- 
duction of that teeming region is too vast to 
be affected by an operation so minute. — 
The Mississippi must have an ocean to re- 
ceive the waters of its innumerable foun- 
tains, and its valley must have a world for 
a market. To create a home market for its 
production in New England or elsewhere 
by legislation, is just about as ludicrous aa 
operation as digging a home reservoir to re^ 
ceive the waters of its mighty rivers. 

As a man of the West we say to the Gen- 
eral Government, clear out our Rivers, pro- 
tect us from piracy and war on the ocean, 
and give us the world for a market. Do 
this; and in half a century, we will shofr 
you results never surpassed in earthly beau- 
ty and prctectivenesa, since God planted 
the first garden among the four rivon of 
Eden. 



r W46 






^^ 



%M' 






O^ , o * 







> ^ 



c 






. •^ » « 

■ > 



.0 



ATI »J 



^O^'^ 









4. 



o* 



. O " P 









A ■ 









V 












r« • » 






